Commons Sitting of 23 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means from this Evening's Sitting.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—London Southern Tramways Bill; Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Water Bill. As amended, considered: to be read the third time.
  Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Epping Gas Bill; Loughborough Corporation Bill; Seaham Gas Bill; Wrex-
  928
  ham Gas Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Clay Gross Railway (Abandonment) Bill; Southampton and Winchester Great Western Junction Railway (Abandonment) Bill. Reported, without Amendment; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water Bill; Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Bill; Chelsea Electricity Supply Bill; South Suburban Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
  Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
  Petition from Brighton, for establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOT LAND BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Bathgate; and Crail; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (ARMY VOTES).
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 21st March, 1905, under the Appropriation Act, 1904, authorising the temporary application of surpluses on certain Army Votes for the year 1904–5 to defray excesses on other Army Votes for the same year [pursuant to Resolution of the House of 4th March, 1879]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 94.]

  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Account presented, of the Gross Amount of all Bank Annuities and any Annuities for terms of years transferred,

  929
  and of all Sums of Money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the Gross Amount of Annuities for Lives and for terms of years, etc., granted within the year ended 5th January, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 95.]

  FLEETS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th March; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 96.]
  PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND) (SALARIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 11th August, 1904; Mr. Ffrench]; to lie upon the Table.

  TURKEY (No. 1, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Decree relating to the Ottoman Public Debt, issued 1st (14th) September, 1903, as an Annex to the Decree of 28 Mouharrem 1299 (8th (20th) December, 1887) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  Ports.

  Amount of recruiting fees paid for duties performed.

  Inside office hours.

  Outside office hours.

  S.

  d.

  S.

  d.

  Colchester

  2

  6

  —

  Yarmouth

  5

  0

  —

  Drogheda

  —

  15

  0

  Fraserburgh

  —

  5

  0

  Larne (Port of Belfast)

  —

  5

  0

  Lynn

  —

  5

  0

  Wexford

  —

  25

  0

  The amounts shown above were directed to be refunded on the ground that the receipt of those fees was inconsistent with the general rules of the Customs Department. It is held that the official pay of an officer covers work performed during

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Recruiting Fees Paid to Customs Officers.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the names of the ports in the United Kingdom where bringing money or recruiting fees were paid (in accordance with the recommendations of the Naval Reserves Committee and the instructions in the circular issued by the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen, December 24th, 1903, to registrars of Royal Naval Reserve) to officers of Customs other than those acting as registrars who were performing mercantile marine duties, and the amount of money so paid in each port for duties performed inside and outside of office hours respectively; and will he explain why this money bad to be refunded irrespective of the hour in which it was earned, according to the General Order (Customs) 8, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
  official hours for other Government Departments, and arrangements are in operation whereby such work performed outside official hours is paid for at the regular overtime rates.

  White Slave Traffic—International Convention.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the exchange and deposit of ratifications in respect of the International Convention with regard to the White Slave Traffic, signed at Paris on the 18th of May, 1904, have yet taken place; whether the international arrangement following upon that Convention has yet come into force; and whether the text of the Convention and arrangement, as well as the other Papers relating to the Paris Conference in 1902, will now be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The deposit of ratifications, which has been substituted for a formal exchange between each contracting State as provided for in the Convention is recorded in a Procès verbal drawn up at Paris on the 18th of January last. The Convention will, by its terms, come into force six months after the date of this Procès verbal, viz., on the 18th of July next. Three of the contracting States who have not yet deposited their ratifications can do so before that date. The question of publication will be considered in due course.

  Renewal of Public-House Licences Refused this Year.
  MR. CORBETT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of public-house licences have been refused renewal this year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have, at present, no information on the subject.

  Inquests-Practice of Juries Viewing the Bodies.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Coroner Graham, of Consett, anent the advisability of discontinuing the practice of compelling juries to view dead bodies upon which inquests are being held; and whether he purposes taking any action for putting an end to this practice.
  932
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My attention had not been called to the remarks in question, but I have read a newspaper report of them which the hon. Member was good enough to send me. Legislation would be necessary to enable the practice to be discontinued; and on this point I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answers given by my predecessor on 22nd February† and 29th March, †1900, to the effect that there was no such decided preponderance of expert opinion in favour of any definite change in the law as would afford a reason for proposing legislation of the kind suggested.

  Compensation for Injuries to Seamen— Suggested Legislation.
  MR. ROBSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, whether, having regard to the pledges of the Government to deal by legislation with the question of compensation for injuries to seamen, they intend to introduce a Bill for that purpose during the present session of Parliament; and, if not, when they propose to do so.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that 103 lives were lost on British vessels in the month of February, 1905; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a measure during the present session of Parliament to provide compensation for seamen injured on British ships, and for the dependents of seamen who are killed and drowned in the course of their employment.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I will answer these two Questions together. The Government fully recognise the importance of this subject. They do not, however, think it possible to bring in during the present session a Bill for the general Amendment of the Compensation Act, and another Bill applying to seamen, especially, as the question as regards seamen is complicated by certain recommendations of a Departmental Committee (Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 2208 of 1904) which are of a far-reaching character.
  † See (4) Debates, 1xxix., 800.
  † See (4) Debates, 1xxxi., 709.

  Vaccination—Imprisonment of Conscientious Objectors—Case of J. W. Harrison.
  MR. STANHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Jabez Wilson Harrison, of Burgh le Marsh, Lincolnshire, who has already suffered two months imprisonment imposed upon him by the magistrates of Spilsby and Boston, and who is now undergoing a third term of imprisonment of a month inflicted upon him by the latter bench of magistrates, in consequence of his conscientious objection to compulsory -vaccination, and the refusal of the magistrates to grant him a certificate of exemption; whether he will order the release of this man, and call the attention of the magisterial benches of Spilsby and Boston to the spirit and intention of the Vaccination Acts with regard to conscientious objectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave last Tuesday† to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty on this case. This was as follows: "I have made inquiries into this case, and I learn that the remarks on the subject of conscientious objection to vaccination made by the Lord Chief Justice at the Birmingham Summer Assizes were brought to the notice of the Spilsby magistrates before they convicted Harrison. The question whether the circumstances justify the issue of a certificate of exemption is in each case one for the discretion of the magistrates, with which I have no power to interfere. "I regret that I do not feel justified in advising any remission of the sentence.

  Annual Leave in the Telegraph Service.
  MR. SOAEES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that in 1899 the Department made certain arrangements in the telegraph service with reference to annual leave, and made a promise to the staff that, provided the scheme was accepted, the staff should be sent away in equal numbers throughout the eight months of the year, he will
  † See page 648.
  934
  explain why this pledge has been departed from at Exeter for 1905, the three best holiday months having the number on leave lessened.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No promise was given that the staff should be sent away in equal numbers in each of the eight months over which the leave season extends.

  Sanitary Condition of Dover Town Station Sorting Office.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEBMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the high death rate recently prevailing among the men employed in the sorting office at the Town Station at Dover; and whether he will inquire into the sanitary conditions under which the work in that office is performed.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) My attention has been called to the matter. I am sorry to say that some deaths from phthisis have occurred in the last few years amongst the postal staff who were employed, or who had at some time been employed, at Dover; but on investigation I was glad to find that the medical officer did not associate any of them with the condition of the office, and that the sick rate at Dover is rathe below than above the average. At the same time, I recognise that the present office at the station is overcrowded and unsatisfactory, and I have made arrangements for taking new temporary premises which will make it possible to provide more space and better accommodation. The new premises will be ready for occupation very soon, and I hope that before long a better permanent office to take the place of the station office will be provided.

  Postal Deliveries in the Liscarrol and Churchtown District (County Cork).
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Postmaster-General, in reference to the mail service of the Liscarrol and Churchtown district, whether six or seven tenders were made for a mail car service between Buttevant and this district in March, 1900; and, if so, what was the result; and whether, seeing that letters

  935
  from Cork city arriving in Buttevant about 5 p. m. are not delivered in Liscarrol until 9 o'clock a. m. next day, and that letters from Dublin and Great Britain arriving in Buttevant about 10. 30 a. m. are not delivered until 9 o'clock next day, he will, in view of the importance of this district and the delay caused by present arrangement, arrange for a second mail delivery each day in Liscarrol and Churchtown.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will have inquiry made on the subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Payment for Sunday Duty in the Post Office.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General if the regulation that no duty performed by an officer of the Post Office shall be reckoned at less than one hour, and paid for accordingly, is also applicable to attendances on Sunday.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Officers to whom the regulation applies as regards weekday duty are entitled to the same concession for Sunday duty.

  Seamen Killed and Drowned on British Ships—Men Killed in Factories.
  MR. JOHNSON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state the number of seamen killed and drowned on British ships from the beginning of the year 1896 till the end of the year 1904; the number of men employed in the shipping industry; the number of men killed in the factories and workshops in the same period; and the number of men employed in factories and workshops.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The figures asked for by the hon. Member are given, as regards seamen, in Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 2232] for the years 1896 to 1903. The figures for 1904 are not yet complete, but the lives reported to present date as having been lost are 990, namely, 417 by wrecks and casualties, 348 by drowning other than by wrecks and casualties, and 225 by accident other than drowning, wreck, or casualty. The number of men employed in 1904 has not
  936
  yet been ascertained. The number of males killed in factories and workshops during the years 1896 to 1904 was 7, 944. The number of males employed in factories and workshops has not been ascertained since 1897, when it was 2, 975, 394.

  Compensation for Accidents to Seamen— Case of A. Davies.
  MR. BROADHURST: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the explosion which occurred on board the British steamship "Gwendoline," in the month of April, 1904, which resulted in a seaman named Alfred Davies receiving injuries which necessitated his remaining for fifty-seven days in hospital at Gibraltar and his inability to do any work since the accident; whether he is aware that Davies was landed in London destitute and sent to Dublin at the expense of the Shipwrecked Mariners' Society, and that he is now living in Dublin on the charity of friends; and whether any inquiry was held into the cause of the explosion referred to.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the case to which the hon. Member refers. No formal inquiry has been held, but it appears from a report made by the captain of the port at Gibraltar in April last, and from an entry in the official log, that the explosion was caused by the boatswain striking a match in the lazarette of a vessel laden with coal. The Board of Trade have no reason to believe that the vessel was not loaded in accordance with the regulations, but on this point further inquiry will be made upon her next return to the United Kingdom.

  Petrol Working of Rocket Wagons.
  MR. SOARES: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances under which twenty-three lives were lost owing to the wreck of the ship "Khyber" off Land's End on the 15th instant, and to the fact that horses had to be fetched for the rocket apparatus from a distance of three-quarters of a mile; and whether he will inquire as to the advisability of working rocket wagons by petrol or some

  937
  other similar power in places which are suitably situated for the purpose, and in which horses are difficult to obtain.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade have ordered a formal inquiry to be held into the circumstances attending the recent wreck of the "Khyber," and the points mentioned by the hon. Member shall receive careful consideration.

  Report of Engineering Experts on Osborne College Training.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty intend to publish the Report of the engineering experts on the Osborne College training, to which reference has recently been made in official Papers.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) It is not proposed to publish the Report in question, but I should be glad to show it to the hon. Member if he desires to see it.

  Manufacture of Rifles and Bayonets— Dismissals at Enfield Factory.
  COLONEL BOWLES: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office for whom is the extra £78, 000 worth of rifles and bayonets to be made, and where will their cost be shown on the Estimates; and whether he will state how many men belonging to the inspection department at Enfield are under notice of dismissal beyond the 403 engaged in the manufacturing department.
  (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) The difference between the amount stated yesterday† in reply to the hon. and gallant Member as available for rifles and bayonets and the amount shown in Estimates is due to supply of rifles and bayonets to India, and will not be shown in Estimates, Seventy-one men belonging to the inspection department at Enfield are under notice of dismissal, besides the 403 men in the factory.
  † See page 780.

  Death of a Boy through Beating in Assam.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to paragraph 195 of the recent Report on the Province of Assam, in which it is stated that a coolie boy died from the effects of a beating believed to have been inflicted by some chaukidars, to whom he had been handed over in order that ho should be made to confess where certain property, which he was suspected of having stolen, was concealed; and whether any steps have been taken by the local administration of Assam or by the Government of India with reference to the decision of the High Court, under which trifling fines were inflicted on the manager and assistant manager of the estate, with a view to revise the punishment inflicted.
  (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have noticed the paragraph referred to in the Question. The case was not tried in the High Court, but in the Sessions Court for the Assam Valley, by the Judge with the assistance of a jury. I have no official information as to the facts, but will make inquiries.

  Indian Gold Reserve.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India it he will state in what security the gold reserve of India is invested; and whether, at the present quotations, such investment shows a loss; and, if so, to what extent.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I presume that by "the gold reserve of India" is meant the special gold reserve fund to which the net profit on the coinage of rupees is transferred. The fund is invested in the following securities; Consols, National War Loan, Local Loans Stock. Transvaal Government 3 per cent. Guaranteed Stock, and Treasury Bills. The value of these securities at the present market price is in excess of the amount for which they were purchased.

  Indian Factories engaged in the Manu- facture of War Material—Europeans and Natives Employed—Amount sup plied by Great Britain.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many factories in India are at present engaged in the manufacture of war material, and the number of Europeans and natives respectively employed in these factories; and will he state the value of the war material supplied last year to the Indian Army by the factories of India and by this country respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) There are at present eleven factories in India engaged in the manufacture of war material. I am unable to state the number of Europeans and natives employed in these factories, or the value of the war material supplied to the Indian Army by the factories of India. The value of that supplied from this country was approximately £875, 000, exclusive of clothing to the value of £227, 652 5s. 8d.

  Property of Evicted Ryots put up for Auction in the Madras Presidency.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many acres of land, the property of evicted ryots, have been put up for auction by Government in the Madras Presidency in default of payment of land revenue during the five years ending the 30th June, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Land Revenue Report for 1903–4, has not reached me. The sales of land during the five years ending 1902–3 were as under:—1898–9, 60, 806 acres; 1899–1900, 52, 852 acres; 1900–1, 61, 563 acres; 1901–2, 45, 712 acres; 1902–3, 30, 583 acres.

  Supply of Salt by the Government to Native States in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India supplies salt free of duty to all the native States of India; and, if so, will he say whether the Government imposes any restrictions as to the profit which the native States may secure on re-sale of the salt to the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Answer to the first part of the
  940
  Question is in the negative. The right is enjoyed by certain States only, and is in virtue of special agreements. With regard to restrictions on re-sale, the hon. Member is referred to the information given in answer to a Question put by him on December 16th, † 1902. The conditions vary in different cases.

  Sugar from Irish-Grown Beet.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the importations of foreign sugar into Dublin and other Irish ports last year, he will impress on the Department of Agriculture the advisability of experimenting on a large and practical scale to try the feasibility of producing sugar from Irish beet upon a paying basis, seeing that the ratio of saccharine matter in Irish beet exceeds that of German beet, and also that a failure of the beet-sugar operations took place in Germany last year owing to the dry season.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department are satisfied that beet could not be made as remunerative a crop as other root crops now grown in Ireland. They are, therefore, not prepared to carry out an experiment of the nature suggested, which would involve, as a preliminary, the erection and equipment of a factory at a cost of about £60, 000, exclusive, of working capital. The Department have recently prepared a pamphlet setting forth the reasons why the production of beet sugar would not be profitable in Ireland. I have sent a copy of this pamphlet to the hon. Member.

  Irish Valuation—Suggested Introduction of Scotch System.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in Scotland the local authorities valuation assessment committees carry on the work of valuation without expense to the ratepayers and give satisfaction to those concerned; whether he can state how many thousand pounds per annum it costs to maintain the valuation staff in Ireland, which is not subject to local control or co-operation from elected representatives; and
  † See (4) Debates, cxvi., 1331.

  941
  whether, seeing this method has not given general satisfaction, the Government will consider the advisability of introducing the Scotch system into Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I cannot admit that the work of valuation in Scotland is carried out without expense to the ratepayers. I believe the contrary is the fact, but I am not in a position to compare the cost of valuation in the two countries. The total cost of the Valuation Department in Ireland is about £24, 000, about £8, 000 of which is paid by the local authorities. The system is so efficient and satisfactory that appeals against the decision of the Commissioner are lodged in only about one-sixth per cent. of the cases ruled by him. The reply to the last query is in the negative.

  Refusal of Gun Licences in Ireland—Cases of Mr. J. Michael and Mr. P. Raffery.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why Mr. James Michael, of Freem, Turlough Park, Castlebar, county Mayo, was refused a gun licence which he required for the protection of his crops from vermin.
  (Answered by Mr. Waller Long.) The question of the issue of an arms licence is one for the consideration of the resident magistrate, who is the licensing officer of the district. It would be contrary to the invariable practice to state the reasons which actuated the licensing officer in declining, in the exercise of his discretion, to grant a licence in any particular case.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick Raffery, of Rathreddy, Loughrea, made application to carry and use, on his own lands, a gun for the destruction of vermin; and whether, seeing that he holds in or about twenty-five Irish acres, ten of which are under tillage, and is in sole charge of the management of the farm by reason of the age and infirmity of his father, he will cause instructions to be given to accede to his application.
  942
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The licence was refused by the licensing officer, who is the resident magistrate of the district, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him. The case is not one which calls for my interference.

  Appointment of Manager of Lislea No. 1 National School.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the inquiry in September, 1903, when the former clerical manager of the Lislea No. 1 National School (county Armagh) tendered his resignation, the chief inspector stated that he considered the lessee of the school had a right to be appointed as manager; will he say whether the name of the lessee was submitted to the Commissioners; and, if so, what objection have the Commissioners to his appointment; and whether, in view of the fact that there is no probability of a successor to the former clerical manager being appointed to the charge of the congregation with which the school is connected, and that the present temporary manager resides twenty miles distant and cannot exercise effective oversight of the school, the National Commissioners are prepared to consider a further memorial from the parents resident in the district in reference to this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It transpired at the inquiry mentioned that there was much difference of opinion locally as to the most fitting appointment to be made. Pending the appointment of a new minister of Drumhillery Church, the chief inspector recommended the appointment as temporary manager of the Reverend Mr. Simpson, who appeared to be acceptable to the persons concerned. Mr. Simpson was appointed accordingly. There is no lessee of the school, which is vested in and the property of the Commissioners. The present arrangement as to the managership works satisfactorily.

  Lichfield Rifle Range—Staffordshire Bat talions and Militia.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if the rifle range near Lichfield is being used; and, if not,

  943
  what steps are being taken to make it available.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give any reason why none of the Staffordshire battalions are quartered at Lichfield, and why none of the Staffordshire Militia battalions are to train there tins year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The 1st North Staffordshire Regiment is going to Aldershot in the ordinary course for training purposes, after having been quartered for the usual two years at Lichfield. It will not be possible to train the four Staffordshire Militia battalions at Lichfield in a satisfactory manner this year. The troops are unable to make full use of the rifle range on account of a certain right of way over a portion of the range which is only closed during certain hours. I am, however, glad to say that negotiations on this matter are progressing satisfactorily.

  Army, Militia, and Volunteer Recruits— References as to Character.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the nature of references as to character required for men joining the Army, Militia, and Volunteers respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) In the case of candidates for enlistment in the Regulars and Militia, the following questions are put to the person given as a reference:—1. In what capacity have you known——? 2. How long have you known him? 3. What time has elapsed since you last saw him to speak to? 4. What do you know of his character—Is he sober? Honest? Respectable? 5. Has he to your knowledge served in the Army, Navy, Royal Marines, Militia, Imperial Yeomanry, or Volunteers? If so, please state which. 6. Is he married or single? If a widower, state number of children, if any. As regards Volunteers, there is no provision with respect to character.

  Reports of Director of Army Contracts.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the
  944
  Director of Army Contracts makes any periodic Reports; and if so, to whom, and for what periods; and whether there is any, and if so what, objections to laying them before Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Annual Reports on Army contracts have always been made and will be continued. The Reports are addressed to the Financial Member of the Council. They have always been treated as confidential documents, and will continue to be so treated.

  Establishment and Effective Strength of Regular Infantry.
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present establishment of the Regular Infantry; and what is its effective strength.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The present establishment of the Regular Infantry including the Guards is 146, 453, and the strength on the 1st March was 145, 234.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Yangtse River—Protection of British Interests.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to withdraw the six British sloops and two British gunboats which have been engaged in patrolling the Yangtse River; I and, if so, whether he can state the grounds for this change of policy; and what other methods have been adopted for the protection of the lives and property and the upholding of British, interests in the Yangtse region.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): The patrol of the Yangtse is now carried out by six river gunboats which are exclusively employed on this service. The other vessels alluded to were not specially allotted for the Yangtse, but simply visited this river occasionally

  945
  in the ordinary course of cruising, and were neither necessary nor required for patrol purposes.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Do I correctly understand that six British gunboats are now patrolling the Yangtse and will continue to be there?
  MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, Sir. They are stationed on the river.

  War Office Wastages—Sales of Surplus Suits of Clothes.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, seeing that within the last year about 20, 000 suits of clothes which had been bought by contract were sold for about 40 per cent. less than they cost, he will state the reason for selling them and the purchase price and sale price.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE AVAR OFFICE (Mr. BEOMLEY DAVENPORT,): These suits of clothes, which were purchased for the purpose of giving to soldiers on discharge and to Boer prisoners, were found surplus to requirements at the end of the South African War. They were accordingly put out to tender and the best offer was accepted. The cost price was 11s. 9d., and the price realised at the sale was 5s. 6d. for 10, 000 and 5s. 7½d. for the remaining 10, 000.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: Are they not the same description of clothes that are being served out at present?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I am not sure whether that is so, but they were surplus.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Could they not have been kept in stock until they were wanted?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No, Sir.

  Aldershot Staff Appointments.
  CAPTION NORTHON: I beg to ask the Secretary, of state for
  946
  War if he will explain why an officer who is not a graduate of the Staff College has been appointed Brigade Major of Cavalry at Aldershot; will he say what are his special qualifications for this post; and also has the appointment been made with the unanimous approval of the Army Council.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The officer referred to is not a P. S. C. Officer, but he was qualified for the, appointment by good service on the staff in the field. He was, in fact, very strongly recommended by General Sir John French. Appointments to the staff are not ordinarily submitted to the Army Council, but are made by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Army Councillor concerned.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: What is the object of putting the country to the immense expense of keeping up the Staff College to prepare officers for the staff it such officers are not to have these appointments?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Artillery Armaments.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many batteries of artillery which took part in the South African War are still armed with the identical guns they had in that campaign.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: None of the batteries which took part in the war and have since left South Africa are now armed with the identical guns they had during the war. There are nine batteries now in South Africa which took part in the war; these are armed with guns of the same pattern as were used in the war. When worn out the guns are condemned and replaced, and since the war seven serviceable guns have been sent out to replace guns condemned.

  Reserve of Guns and Ammunition.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of 12-pounder horse artillery guns, and the number of 15-pounder guns now in reserve; also the

  947
  number of rounds of ammunition per field gun in reserve.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I regret that I am unable to give the hon. Member the information asked for in the Question. It would not tend to the public advantage to disclose the amount of our reserves.

  British Garrison in Egypt.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the British force in Egypt, which has lately been reduced, is about to be again increased by four companies of infantry.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Yes, Sir. The establishment of the battalions stationed in Egypt is reduced under the Army Estimates for 1905–6, and the four companies are sent to make good the difference in the numbers of the British force caused by this reduction.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: Is there no increase in the garrison?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The number of men is the same.
  MR. WEIR: Is there not a large increase of expense?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No increase at all. It is simply a transfer from the Mediterranean garrisons.

  Royal Pay Warrant and Manual of Military Law.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to issue new editions of the Royal Warrant for pay, appointment, promotion, and non-effective pay of the Army, and the Manual of Military Law.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The new edition of the Pay Warrant will be available in May. The Manual of Military Law is under revision, and it is not possible at present to state a probable date for its publication.

  South African Jam Contracts.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any
  948
  of the jam supplied for South Africa in tins containing only twelve ounces of jam instead of one pound was made from stone fruit; and, if so, whether the weight of the stones is included in the weight of the jam.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Stone fruit jam (i. e., plum and apricot) was accepted among other jams from the Australian Colonies, and, following the usual procedure with home supplies, it was stipulated with the Agents-General that both jams should be free from stones.
  AN HON. MEMBER: A case of colonial preference.

  Militia Recruiting.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to allow regiments of Militia which are weak to enlist men in neighbouring large towns outside their districts or counties where recruits could easily be got.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The practice of temporarily extending the recruiting area of a unit is already permitted by the regulations, and is adopted when any good result can be obtained. Further, when large towns border on several counties, recruiting officers are allowed to consider such towns common to the several county Militia.

  1st North Staffordshire Regiment and Staffordshire Militia Battalions.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to remove the 1st North Staffordshire Regiment from Lichfield to Aldershot; if so, whether he can state what are the reasons for making this change in view of the local feeling that the battalion should remain in the county to which it belongs; whether the four Staffordshire Militia battalions are to be sent this year, two to Delamere in Cheshire, and two to Ross in Herefordshire instead of remaining at Lichfield for the annual training; and whether he is aware that considerable expense will be incurred in making these changes.
  MR. BILL: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for War whether the troops at Whittington Barracks are still unable to make full use of the new Lichfield rifle range owing to the existence of a contiguous right of way; and, if so, what steps are being taken by the War Office to get this right of way stopped.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The 1st North Staffordshire Regiment is going to Aldershot in the ordinary course for training purposes after having been quartered for the usual two years at Lichfield. It will not be possible to train the four Staffordshire Militia Battalions at Lichfield in a satisfactory manner this year. The troops are unable to make full use of the rifle range on account of a certain right of way over a portion of the range which is only closed during certain hours. I am, however, glad to say that negotiations on this matter are progressing satisfactorily.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: When are the negotiations likely to be concluded?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I cannot say. I shall be extremely glad if the hon. Member will assist us.

  Enfield and Sparkbrook Small Arms Factories.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state, in view of the proposed reduction of the staff at Enfield and Sparkbrook Small Arms Factories, whether there is any intention of discontinuing the manufacture of the new pattern short rifle.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The proposed reductions in numbers at Enfield and Sparkbrook are in no way connected with the question of the merits of the new short rifle.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the Question?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The question of continuing the manufacture of the short rifle for the infantry is not raised by these reductions, as the pro-
  950
  gramme for the year only provided for the supply of rifles for the mounted troops.

  Cost of British Troops in India.
  MAJOR SEELY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division of Wiltshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the average cost of transporting a soldier from this country to India and back; and also the extra cost of uniform, and in all other particulars, made necessary by the soldier being stationed in India instead of remaining in this country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BKODRICK,): The average cost of transporting a soldier from this country to India and back is, according to an estimate made in 1901, £18; this estimate is at present under revision. According to figures procured from India in May, 1903, the extra cost of a soldier in India varied at that time, according to the branch of the service to which he belonged, between£4 17s. 11d. for an infantry soldier and £8 12s. 9d. for a field artilleryman.
  MAJOR SEELY: Per year or per equipment?
  MR. BRODRICK: Per year.

  Barbed Wire Compounds for Coolie Labour.
  MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Frank Smith Diamond Mining Company has erected a barbed wire fence around the whole of its compound, and has covered the whole of the open space in the centre overhead with wire netting; and whether he proposes to take any action to mitigate this form of imprisonment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LITTTELTON,): I understand that the mine referred to is in the Cape Colony, and the matter is therefore under the control of the Government of that self-governing Colony, with whose responsibility I am not able to interfere.

  Land Settlement in South Africa.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the fact that 1, 248 settlers have been allotted 1, 935, 261 acres of land and have received advances to the extent of £168, 246 in the Orange River Colony and Transvaal, will he state the number of settlers actually now in occupation of these land allotments; and can he state the amount of arable cultivation on the 1, 935, 261 acres.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have no recent information beyond what was given in my reply of March 20th, † but I will make inquiry by next mail.

  South African War Jam Contracts.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communications have been received from Colonial authorities as to the defective weights in the jam supplied for the troops in South Africa; it so, will he state the nature of these communications.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg also to ask the Secretary of Statefor the Colonies whether the contracts for the supply of jam in South Africa, placed by the Agents General with the Colonial authorities, stipulated for net or nominal weights; with what Colonial authorities were these orders placed; the date of these orders; and whether they were placed at the suggestion of the Colonial Office.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I am unable to give the hon. Member any information as to the contracts for the supply of jam, as the Colonial Office has had nothing to do with these contracts, and has not engaged in any correspondence in regard to them.

  Egyptian State Railways.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state when the Government of Egypt propose to publish the complete Report of Lord Farrer's Commission on Egyptian State Railways.
  † see page 444.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.): We have no information, but inquiry will be made.

  Bahr-el-Ghazal.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Roscommon, I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the lease of a portion of the Bahr-el-Ghazal territory made to the Sovereign of the Congo State is still in existence or whether it has been cancelled; and, if so, when was it cancelled.
  EARL PERCY: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I returned to him on the 16th instant. †

  British Supreme Court at Shanghai.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under an Order of Council due to come into effect on the 1st April, the title Chief Justice will be taken away from the Principal Judge of the British Supreme Court at Shanghai; and, if so, whether, in view of the opinion of British residents that this course will be injurious to British prestige, His Majesty's Government will reconsider the question of its retention.
  EARL PERCY: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to the Member for North St. Pancras on the 16th instant. The adoption of the nomenclature common to all His Majesty's Extra-territorial Courts is not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, calculated to be attended with the results apprehended by the hon. Member.

  Somaliland—Agreement with the Mullah.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state in full the arrangements which have been come to with the Somali Mullah; and whether this arrangement will enable a reduction to be made in the garrison now quartered in Somaliland.
  EARL PERCY: I am afraid we have no further information on the subject,
  † See page 177.

  953
  but we have telegraphed to General Swayne for further details, which have not yet arrived.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Does the noble Lord moan to say that the Government are under the impression that some treaty arrangement has been come to with the Mullah? Are they not aware how far that goes?
  EARL PERCY: I think I have already announced that an arrangement was made with and an agreement was signed by the Mullah with the Italian representative. He also sent a representative to Berbera, who signed peace there with General Swayne.

  Linguistic Studies of Metropolitan Police.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of the members of the Metropolitan Police Force who are now learning or who have learnt Jüdish-Deutsch or other foreign tongues in order to qualify them for the effective discharge of their duties among the alien population in this kingdom.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): About 100 members of the Metropolitan Police Force are at the present time learning Jüdish-Deutsch or other foreign tongues, and fifty or sixty others have already acquired a certain amount of linguistic knowledge.

  Licensing Statistics—Number of Refusals to Renew.
  *MR. LEIF JONESI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, pending the issue of detailed Returns under the Licensing Act, 1904, Section 7, he can make a summary statement, giving the total number of licensing districts in which any licences have been refused renewal or reported for non-renewal in the general annual licensing meetings just concluded, together with the total number of licences so refused or reported.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I could not comply with this request without calling
  954
  for a special return from every Licensing, Bench in the country; and, as the figures so procured would not give any real indication of the results to be obtained under the Act, I do not feel justified in taking this course. I have under consideration arrangements for showing the operation of the Act during the year so soon as information is available.

  Samford Poacher's Conviction.
  MR. GODDARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Harry Quantrill, who was sentenced by the Samford magistrates to one month's imprisonment without the option of a fine for night poaching and killing pheasants in close time; and whether, in consideration of this being a first offence, and of Quantrill having hitherto a good character, he will take steps to mitigate the sentence; and whether he will bring in a Bill to reduce the penalties for first offences of this kind.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: My attention has been called to this case. I have made inquiry into the circumstances and have communicated with the magistrates. I regret, however, that after careful consideration I am unable to advise His Majesty to grant any mitigation of the sentence. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, Section 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, gives magistrates complete discretion to substitute a fine for imprisonment, or to reduce the amount of the prescribed penalty in any case with which they may have to deal; and no further legislation on the subject appears to me to be necessary.

  Mine Inspection in Fifeshire.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increase in coal mining in Fifeshire, he will appoint a resident mine inspector for that county.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,): Very careful consideration has been given to the needs of Fifeshire in the

  955
  matter of inspection. The whole staff of the East Scotland district, comprising a district inspector and two junior inspectors, is now concentrated at Edinburgh, from which place Fifeshire is easily reached. The advantages of this plan outweigh any that would be gained by stationing one of these inspectors to reside in Fifeshire; and the appointment of an additional inspector would not be justified.

  Bill Dealing with the Unemployed.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when it is proposed to introduce the Bill dealing with the question of the unemployed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am afraid I am not yet in a position to give a date for the introduction of this Bill.

  Solway Salmon Fisheries.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he proposes to initiate legislation this session on the subject of the Solway Salmon Fisheries.
  SIR ROBERT REID: May I at the same time ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Government intend to take any steps in regard to the Solway Fisheries which have been the subject of a recent inquiry.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES,): As my hon. friends are aware, a Bill to deal with certain questions affecting the Solway Salmon Fisheries was introduced I last session, but it was not received with much favour by any of the various authorities and interests concerned. I am afraid that it would not be possible this session to pass any measure which gave rise to serious controversy, but if a spirit of compromise is abroad, I would gladly do anything in my power to effect a settlement. I quite recognise the importance of the questions at issue to the local interests concerned.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill on the lines of the Stafford Howard Commission.
  *MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I sent one of our inspectors to make a report on this matter, but unfortunately he has been ill for some few weeks, and until he is better I cannot give an absolute Answer to the Question.

  Alien Immigration Statistics.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state the number of alien immigrants who have come by steerage to the United Kingdom during the last ten years by each of the British steamship lines from the ports of Hamburg, Bremen, Libau, Rotterdam, Antwerp, the Danube ports, Fiume, and the Italian ports, and the fares charged from each of such ports on each of such lines in each of the years ending December, 1895, to December, 1904?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): I regret that I am not in a position to give this information.

  Port of London.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the Consular Report, issued by the Foreign Office, No. 3327, of 1905, relating to the shipping and navigation of Antwerp, in which the increase of prosperity in that port is stated to be coincident with the great efforts which are being continually made by the port authorities to keep pace with the ever-increasing influx of maritime traffic, all modern improvements for convenience in the loading and discharging of vessels having been either carried out or are shortly to be taken in hand; whether the increase of dock accommodation at Antwerp is still proceeding; and whether, having regard to the backward condition of the port of London in respect of all that the port of Antwerp is stated by the British Consul to be in continuous improvement, he will advise His Majesty's Government to assist legislation on the

  957
  port of London during the present session.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to support in their present form either of the Bills dealing with the port of London now before Parliament.
  MR. BENN: Is the Government prepared to introduce any proposals of its own?
  MR. BONAR LAW: Not this session.

  British Trawlers under Foreign Flags.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if, in view of the fact that British subjects evade British laws by nominally placing their trawl boats under foreign flags, he will consider what steps should be taken to bring such persons to punishment.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I am sensible of the importance of this question, and if any specific instances are adduced of conduct such as alleged in the Question they will be fully considered.

  Regent's Park Inner Circle and Road along the Serpentine—Exclusion of Motor Traffic.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, why private carriages driven by electricity are denied the right exercised by private carriages drawn by horses of using the inner circle of Regent's Park as a promenade; and why the road along the Serpentine is forbidden to electric carriages although open to other private carriages paying equivalent taxes.
  LORD BALCARRES: Private carriages driven by electricity are excluded from the inner circle of Regent's Park under the regulation which closes the road to carriages and cars propelled or drawn by mechanical means. The road along the Serpentine is closed by regulation to all carriages similarly propelled or drawn.
  MR. MALCOLM: May I ask on what principle that preferential treatment is adopted?
  LORD BALCARRES: The reason is that there, are certain parts of the Royal parks in which it is thought undesirable that these vehicles should be allowed to run.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is for the protection of the public.

  Pupil Teachers and Vaccination.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that Miss Eames recently gained a London County Council probationary scholarship for training as a pupil teacher at the Girls' Grammar School, Lewisham, and that, after she had been at the school three months, she was informed by the chairman of the Education Committee of the County Council that they would be compelled, under the regulations of the Board of Education, to cancel her scholarship unless she passed a medical examination showing that she had been vaccinated; and, seeing that Miss Eames was not aware that this condition would be imposed at the time she competed for the scholarship, will he consider the expediency of relaxing the rule.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): The Board have received no information as to the case referred to in the Question. In the absence of precise information it is impossible for me to make any statement upon the matter.

  Johanna Street Council School, Lambeth.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, on the occasion of his visit to the Johanna Street Council School, North Lambeth, he found any children unfit to take advantage of the instruction offered in the school as a result of being hungry and ill-fed; if so, what immediate steps he proposes to take in connection with the condition of such children, if any.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I cannot say that on the occasion of my visit any children were unfit to receive instruction owing to hunger, though I formed an opinion that, owing to long continued unhealthy conditions of life, some of the children were backward in development and needed a simpler and, in some respects, a different course of instruction. I have every hope that the Report of the Committee now sitting will enable us to decide whether these cases can be dealt with by the action of the Department concurrently with organised voluntary effort.

  Underfed School Children—Miss Deverell's Statement.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the statement of Miss Deverell, sub-inspector under the Board of Education, in evidence before the Physical Deterioration Committee, to the effect that she knew one school where the master stated that the children got most of their meals by meeting workmen's trains and begging scraps from the men; and, if so, what immediate steps he proposes to suggest in order that the needs of these children may he so attended to that they may be in a position to profit by the instruction offered them.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I have read the evidence to which the hon. Member refers, but I think that he will agree with me that, in so serious a matter, statements made to a schoolmaster, repeated by him to a lady who communicated them to the Physical Deterioration Committee, would hardly furnish an adequate ground for Departmental action. I may add that I have myself been informed by teachers of the practice referred to, and my informants have added that it by no means necessarily follows that the children thus supplied cannot be fed at home.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Seeing that this lady is fin official of the Department, has the hon. Gentleman any doubt as to the accuracy of her statement?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: None whatever.

  Yorktown (Surrey) Council School— Character of Religious Instruction.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that in the Yorktown (Surrey) Council School the religious instruction is given by the vicar of the parish and is of a sectarian character; and whether he will intimate to the education authority of the district that such proceedings are not in accordance with the Education Acts, and must be discontinued at once.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I am afraid that I have no information as to the case referred to by the hon. Member. I will make inquiries from the county council as to whether the Conscience Clause or the Cowper-Temple Clause have been violated.

  Departmental Committee on Underfed Children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, having regard to the fact that the Physical Deterioration Committee was appointed so far back as 2nd September, 1903, and reported in July, 1904, sat for twenty-six days hearing evidence, and examined sixty-eight expert witnesses, he will say what purpose will be served in the appointment of four officials of the Board of Education, and one official of the Local Government Board, to re-cover the main ground investigated by that Committee; and whether, in view of the delay that the appointment of the Committee announced on Monday last will lead to in regard to the problem of the condition of children who are in attendance at school habitually underfed, he will say when, if it is proposed to go on with this last appointed Departmental Committee, its Report may be expected.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Physical Deterioration Committee devoted a comparatively small part of its labours to the question of the provision of food for school children, and failed to furnish information on certain facts, a knowledge of which is essential to legislative or administrative action on that subject. The Committee which is now sitting will provide a more precise knowledge of

  961
  these facts; and will report with the least possible delay.

  Meals for Underfed Children—Scottish Royal Commission's Recommendation.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to paragraph 360, page 72, of the Report of the Physical Deterioration (1904) Committee, endorsing a recommendation of the Royal Commission (1903) on Physical Training in Scotland, to the effect that cases arise in which it is desirable that the preparation and cooking of meals for underfed school children ought to be regarded as one of the charges incident to school management, and whether he is in a position to assist the putting of this recommendation into practical effect.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: My inquiries on this subject have led me to believe that the wisdom of preparing and cooking meals on the school premises, as a mode of dealing with those cases in which children need to be provided with food elsewhere than at home, is seriously open to question.

  Glamorganshire Evening Continuation School Grant.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board of Education has paid to the Education Committee of the County Council of Glamorgan the grants earned by the evening continuation schools in the Aberdare urban district for the winter session of 1903–4; and, if so, the date on which the payment was made; and why payment is being withheld from the teachers in the locality.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The Board of Education have recently paid to the Education Committee of the Glamorganshire County Council the grants due for twelve out of the thirteen evening schools held in the Aberdare Urban District in the school year 1903–4. The greater number of the claims for these schools were not received by the Board till February of the present year. The claim for grant for the remaining school was sent back to the local education authority for further information in January,
  962
  and has not yet been returned to the Board. The Board of Education have no information as to the alleged withholding of payment from the teachers.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: When was the grant paid?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I think on the 4th of this month, but I cannot say definitely.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he can state in which of the autonomous districts in Glamorganshire evening continuation schools were not opened during the past winter; and why they were not opened.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Evening schools have been opened in all the autonomous areas in Glamorganshire during the session of 1904–5, though apparently in the areas of Aberdare, Pontypridd, and Rhondda certain evening schools previously carried on by the late school boards and their successors have been discontinued. The Board understand that the difficulties which have arisen locally in these cases are likely to be overcome before the next evening school session begins.

  Evening School Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will consider the desirability of inserting in next winter's regulations for evening schools a provision that all teachers' salaries be fixed and not dependent on a share of the grant.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The current regulations of the Board make it a condition of grant to evening schools that "the teachers must, as a rule, be paid be fixed salaries, "and the importance which the Hoard attach to a compliance with this requirement is explained in the prefatory memorandum which is prefixed to those regulations.

  Agricultural Instruction Rate in Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware

  963
  that the District Councils of Abbeyleix and Mountmellick, embracing an area of four-fifths of Queen's County, have passed unanimously resolutions disapproving of a further levying of the rate for agricultural and technical instruction; and that, under the circumstances, the county council propose to levy the rate; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. Resolutions to the effect stated have been passed by the district councils named, but the county council, in the exercise of discretion vested in them, have decided to levy a rate. I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

  Ness Harbour, Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state by whom the plans of Ness Harbour, Island of Lewis, were passed on behalf of the Scottish Office.
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): Assuming that the hon. Member's Question refers to the breakwater, in aid of which a grant of £15, 000 was made by the Government, I have to state that plans were prepared by Messrs. D. & T. Stevenson, and after obtaining a report on them from Colonel E. W. Malcolm, R. E., the Secretary for Scotland in December, 1891, authorised the Harbour Trustees to accept a tender for the execution of the works.

  Mansfield Commission Report.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is now in a position to state when the Report of the Mansfield Commission will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: It is not possible to give the actual date, but the Report will probably be ready about Easter.

  Illegal Trawling off the Isle of Moy.
  CAPTAIN ELLICE: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he has received any reply
  964
  from the Northern Lights Commissioners with reference to the proposal that the light keepers on the Isle of Moy should be encouraged to report cases of illegal trawling coming under their notice; and whether he proposes to do anything to check this illegal trawling.
  SCOTT DICKSON: I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Member that an arrangement has been made with the Northern Lights Commissioners and that the lighthouse keepers on the Isle of Moy will report such cases of illegal trawling as they observe. It would not be advisable to state what steps are to be taken to prevent illegal trawling, as such a statement might defeat the object in view.

  Estates Commissioners—Irish Govern ment's Instructions.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Waterford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what instructions have been given by the Irish Government to the Estates Commissioners with reference to the making of advances under the Land Act of 1903 for the purchase of holdings which are not mainly agricultural but which form part of estates which are mainly agricultural; whether, seeing that under the Land Purchase Acts, previous to the passing of the Land Act of 1903, advances were frequently made to tenants of holdings not mainly agricultural, he will say whether the policy of these Acts has been borne in mind in connection with the instructions given the Estates Commissioners; whether he is aware that the Estates Commisioners have had applications made to them by a large proportion of vendors under the Land Act of 1903 for the inclusion of such holdings in their estates; and that they had agreed to make such advances before instructions to the contrary were conveyed to them in or about November last; and whether, seeing that since these instructions a number of intending vendors of estates partly agricultural have been informed that advances will not be made in such cases, he will say whether the reason for these instructions is the difficulty of obtaining a loan without serious loss to the Irish Development Grant.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is impossible to deal satisfactorily, in replying to a Question such as this, with the numerous and complicated points raised in it. I have already stated that no general instructions of the kind contemplated by Section 23 (8) of the Act of 1903 have ever been drawn up or formulated; that I am at present engaged in formulating them, and hope soon to lay them on the Table of the House; and that, while the, administrative machinery of the Act was being brought into operation, informal communications of a confidential character took place from time to time between the Executive and the Estates Commissioners. I would ask the hon. Member to wait until the regulations have been published, when he will have ample opportunity of discussing all these matters.

  Sergeant Mullany, Royal Irish Con- stabulary.
  MR. PATKICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Waterford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland under what circumstances Sergeant Mullany, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who was stationed at Ballyduff, county Waterford, until recently, has been transferred from that station; and whether the transfer was at his own expense.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The sergeant has been transferred in the interests of the public service, and at the public expense.

  Crime in Ireland—Judges' Charges.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenaut of Ireland whether he is aware that Judges of Assize, in their charges to the Grand Juries, have recently called attention to a serious increase of agrarian crime in Ireland; and whether, in these circumstances, it is intended to continue to reduce the strength of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. FLYNN: Cannot the hon. Member specify the district he refers to and not make such vague charges?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I think the Answer will be found to Jo that. My
  966
  attention has been directed to the newspaper reports of the charges of the Judges of Assize to Grand Juries. I am unable to say how far these newspaper reports are an accurate representation of the language actually used by the learned Judges. Generally speaking, they referred to the peaceable and satisfactory condition of the country, but with respect to the county Galway and county Cork, and portions of the counties of Limerick and Kerry, the Judges' remarks were not satisfactory. The condition of these districts is engaging my most careful consideration, and I am taking special steps to ascertain the facts concerning each of them. In reply to the concluding inquiry, the Inspector-General of Constabulary, whom I have consulted, is of opinion that there is no present necessity for altering the police arrangements already made and provided for. I am making further inquiry into this matter also.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the recent assizes in Ulster more crime was dealt with than in the rest of Ireland altogether?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: What agrarian crime has been committed in the county of Cork?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I must ask for notice of that.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the one portion of Kerry referred to the dissatisfaction arises from the fact that the landlords want twenty-four years purchase for first-term rents?

  Public Bodies Order, 1904.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether lie will state the number and date of the communications which invited opinion on the Public Bodies Order, 1904, from the local public bodies in Ireland; and whether he will say what number of such public bodies have expressed approval of the new Order, giving names and dates of such approval.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Copies of the Order were sent on the 5th September

  967
  last to each of the thirty-three county councils and to each of the six councils of county boroughs and on the 7th November copies were sent to the clerks of thirty-three of the principal urban district councils. Subsequently, at varying dates, copies were sent to all other officers of local authorities who applied for them. The Order having been made under the authority and by direction of Parliament, the Local Government Board did not require the local authorities to express approval or disapproval of the draft. It was laid before them in draft for the purpose of affording them an opportunity of making any suggestions and criticisms which occurred to them. No objections were made to the issue of the Order, but, on the contrary, many valuable suggestions were received and carefully considered, the large proportion of which were adopted by the Board.
  MR. DELANY: Can the right hon. Gentleman mention any one public body in Ireland which approved the Order?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have said no objections were made, but suggestions were sent in and have been acted upon.

  Land Purchase in North Mayo.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many estates in North Mayo have been purchased by the Estates Commissioners or Congested Districts Board under the Act of 1903.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Congested Districts Board have agreed to purchase seven estates in North Mayo, but the estates have not yet become vested in the Board. The Estates Commissioners have purchased one estate in county Mayo, the name and locality of which I shall ascertain and communicate to the hon. Member.

  Ballydoulon Estate.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a portion of the Ballydoulon Estate purchased by the Congested Districts Board is to be given to a Mr. Rothwell, petty sessions
  968
  clerk of Ballinasloe, who was never a tenant on the estate and who does not live within miles of it, seeing that Mr. Rothwell is already in possession of more than one farm elsewhere.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This estate has not been purchased by the Board.

  Pole Carew and Butler Estate, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that immediately subsequent to the purchase agreement on the agricultural portion of Pole Carew and Butler Estate, Banteer, county Cork, similar agreements were signed by the inhabitants of the village for the purchase of their houses; and that within the past week an official of the Estates Commission visited the place and informed the village occupiers that their purchase agreements are to be set aside and they must revert to the old terms of tenancy; and, if so, will he say if this inspector has acted with the knowledge and sanction of the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, what explanation can the Commissioners give for not adhering to the purchase system in this case.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This Question has been referred to the inspector for his observations. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat it on Monday.

  Veterinary Branch, Irish Agricultural Department.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since it has been alleged that the Catholic clerks in the veterinary branch of the Agricultural Department are in no way prejudiced on account of their religion, he will state what is the disability which keeps these gentlemen, after eleven years service, at a practically stationary salary of £95 a year, while men of less experience were brought into the department to do the same class of work at £150 per annum, and were almost immediately promoted to staff clerkships worth considerably more; and whether, in making these latter appointments, the Catholic clerks were considered unfit to fill them; and, if so, why.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Department selected for the staff posts referred to clerks who, in their opinion, possessed the qualifications which rendered them most suitable for the discharge of the duties attached to these positions.
  MR. DELANY: From whom did the right hon. Gentleman get this information?
  MR. WALTER LONG: From the heads of the Department, and I can assure the hon. Member promotions are made according to the requirements of the public service.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did the information come from Sir Horace Plunkett?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Mrs. Lamphier's Estate, Foilacumin, County Tipperary.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Lamphier and her tenants have signed and lodged with the Estates Commissioners agreements for sale and purchase of her estate at Foilacumin, barony of Slievardagh, and county Tipperary; whether he is aware that on this estate there were two evicted tenants, Messrs. McCormac and Feehan, whose farms since their evictions have been held in possession by the owner; can he say why the farms have not been given back to those evicted tenants when the other tenants have arranged for purchase; and will he give instructions to the Estates Commissioners not to sanction the sale of this estate until the evicted tenants shall have been reinstated.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Agreements have been lodged. Applications for reinstatement were received from Messrs. Cormac and Feehan as representatives of former teants. These former tenants, however, had not been evicted, but had received monetary compensation for surrendering their holdings to the landlord. The persons named, therefore, have no claim to reinstatement.

  Dublin Tram Fares for Children.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the Dublin Tramways Company levy full fares for children under twelve years of age; and whether the Commissioners of the Dublin Police regularly supervise the due observance of the by-law prohibiting overcrowding of passengers on tramway cars plying within the Dublin metropolitan district.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Company's by-laws exempt passengers from paying for children in arms under three years of age. I am not aware of any statutory provision which prohibits the levy of full fares for children under twelve. The police are instructed to enforce the by-law prohibiting over-crowding, and prosecutions are instituted when offences are detected.

  Charges against Mountmellick Police.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Carroll was arrested at Summergrove, Mountmellick, on a charge of drunkenness, on the night of the 17th March, was handcuffed, and so treated by the police that, when brought to the police barrack at Mountmellick, he was suffering from such injuries that the sergeant-in-charge requisitioned the services of a surgeon, who ordered Carroll's removal to the Mountmellick workhouse hospital, where he lies in a critical condition; and whether he will give the names of the police constables who arrested Carroll, and say what steps he proposes taking in the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Inquiries are being made in this matter, but they cannot be completed until the injured man's discharge from hospital in a few days. Carroll was arrested by Constables Michael Cryan and Dominick
  Masterton.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are the constables meantime suspended from duty?
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: They ought to be.

  W. T. Galway's Estate, Clooncah, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if a request has been forwarded by the Estates Commissioners to the Land Judge's Court with the view of purchasing the estate of William Thomas Galway, situate in the townland of Clooncah, county Galway, in order to resell same to the tenants; the date when the request was forwarded; and if any, and what, reply has been made by the Land Judge, the absolute order for sale having been made so far back as 1887.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The request was issued to the Land Judge on February 2nd. The necessary documents have not yet been furnished by the Land Judge to the Commissioners.
  MR. KILBRIDE: When are the documents likely to be sent?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot possibly answer that.

  Irish Language—Dunfanaghy Prosecution.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Nial MacBride was recently prosecuted at the Dunfanaghy Petty Sessions for not having his name and address legibly printed upon his cart; and whether, seeing that his name and address ware correctly shown upon the cart in Irish characters, he will give directions that such prosecutions are not in future to be undertaken by the police.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This case is sub judice, the magistrates having consented, at the defendant's instance, to state a case for the opinion of the superior Courts.

  Licensing Fees in Ireland.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in some districts of Ireland petty sessions clerks charge a fee of 2s. 6d. to publicans for
  972
  signing their licences when renewing same; and whether the attention of the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks will be called to this practice.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks is not aware that this practice exists. If the hon. Member will give me specific instances I will have inquiries made.

  Elementary Science Teaching in Ireland.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say how many centres there are in Ireland at which managers and teachers have applied for an elementary science course to be held, and have been refused owing to the withdrawal of the necessary grant; and whether the last annual report of the Head Organiser of Elementary Science will be given to the public.
  MR. WALTER LONG: In four cases this year applications for elementary science classes have been refused by the Board of National Education as a result of the forthcoming termination of the period of employment of the sub-organisers. The Head Organiser's Report will be published with the Board's next Annual Report.

  Cork and Fermoy Direct Line.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Water-ford, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the period within which the Fishguard and Rosslare Railway Company was bound to proceed with the construction of the Cork and Fermoy direct line expired on August 1st, 1904, he will say what steps it is now proposed to take with regard to the sum of £93, 000 which the Treasury agreed to place at the disposal of the Hybrid Committee on the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill in 1898, to be applied towards some project calculated, in their view, to be beneficial to the South-East of Ireland.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The period within which the Cork-Fermoy line should have been proceeded with expired as stated by

  973
  the hon. Member. As the grant of £93, 000 was conditional upon the completion of this line, there is now no question of its issue.

  Stamp Duty on Irish Land Purchases.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Waterford, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue assess stamp duty on all transfers of land purchased under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Acts, or under the Land Act of 1903, not only on the money consideration paid by the transferee but on the entire amount of the outstanding portion of the advance to the purchasing tenant by the Land Commission or the Estates Commissioners; and whether, in view of the additional charge thus imposed on all transfers of purchased land, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to limit the charge to the amount paid by the transferee.
  *MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I would ask the hon. Member to put the Question down again for Monday next.

  The Colonial Conference and Fiscal Reform.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the nature of the instructions to be given to the British representatives at the Colonial Conference to be held in 1905 will be settled by the Government during the present session; whether he will undertake to inform the House at the earliest possible opportunity after such instructions have been decided upon; and whether, if the present Government should be in power at the time of the Colonial Conference, he will undertake that such representatives shall have no power to deal with the fiscal j question in any manner.
  MR. CROMBIE: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of a Colonial Conference being called together by the present Government, and any question of fiscal reform being delegated to it, each of the Colonies will have the same representation and voting
  974
  power, or whether each will be represented proportionally to its population.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think I have already intimated to the House that in my opinion all questions with regard to next year's Colonial Conference are premature at the present moment.

  Company Directors in Parliament.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of the introduction of legislation for the purpose of extending the provisions of the statutes disqualifying contractors with Government Departments from election to the House of Commons, and from sitting and voting therein to directors of incorporated trading companies contracting with Government Departments in their corporate capacity.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose to introduce any legislation on this subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a Member of this House has the smallest contract with the Post Office or Stationery Office he must leave it?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLgave notice of the following Resolution, and said he was sure the Leader of the House would give him a day for it: "That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come for the extension of the provisions of the statutes of disqualifying contractors with Government Departments from election to the House of Commons, and from sitting and voting therein, to directors of incorporated trading companies contracting with Government Departments in their corporate capacity. "

  The Training of Teachers
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to give the promised opportunity for a discussion of the Minute of the Scotch Education Department on the training of teachers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I told the hon. Member for Banffshire that I could not promise facilities for the discussion of this question, but that an opportunity will arise on the Scotch Education Bill or the Estimates before the Minute comes into force.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he wished to ask the attention of the Primo Minister to the appointment of April 3rd as the evening for the discussion of the Bill promoted by the London County Council for carrying a tramway across the river. As the House was given a promise of two full days for the discussion of the Army Estimates in Committee, could not the First Lord of the Treasury take steps to prevent the deprivation this would mean from the time allotted for discussion of the Army Estimates.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYpointed out that the question of the tramways was down for tonight, and it was postponed until April 6th in order to avoid any difficulty. It was next postponed from April 6th till April 3rd, or rather it was brought back from April 6th to April 3rd, because hon. Members opposite were going to have a dinner, and thought it would be inconvenient to attend.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he knew nothing of these prandial engagements which deflected the true course of Parliamentary business. It rested not with him to allocate the time to be occupied by private Bills, but with the Chairman of Committees, who endeavoured, and he believed he did so very evenly, to divide the time required fairly between Government time and private Members' time.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: Might I suggest that hon. Members opposite should put off their dinner?
  MAJOR SEELYappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence to ensure that the promise so solemnly given in reference to the Army Estimates discussion should be kept.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwould not admit that in letter or spirit there had been any breach of the undertaking given in the allocation of the time at his disposal. His hon. friend the Member for Peckham was interested in the County Council Bill and desired to move an instruction to the Committee; and surely it would be possible to come to an arrangement with the promoters of the Bill? Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman could not mean to imply that he had been guilty of a breach of pledge?
  MR. CHURCHILL: It will be in that case.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I expressly and specifically say that nothing of the kind has occurred or should be imputed.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in consideration of the pledge which be gave the debate was allowed to terminate at an unexpectedly early hour? And now it appeals that the pledge will not be carried out unless some arrangement is made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman should make such a suggestion. Everybody in this House who gives a moment's reflection to the subject will see that it is totally unfounded. No pledge with regard to Government time ever has been understood, or could be understood, as referring to time which is not under the control of the Government. I am informed that the original date was the 6th, and that it would have suited everybody. It would have suited the promoters of the Bill, and it would have suited my hon, friend who has an instruction on the Bill. I cannot imagine why we should not adhere to April 6th.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: We should be perfectly willing to have the discussion on April 6th.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman is surely aware that if the whole of the evening of April 3rd were taken up by a private Bill, although the pledge would be kept in the letter, he

  977
  would have broken the pledge in the spirit.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This matter cannot be debated. Questions may be asked of Ministers about matters under their control, but this is a matter under the control first of the Chairman of Ways and Means, afterwards of the House. If it is understood that an alteration of the date would be convenient, it might be possible for the Chairman of Ways and Means to arrange an alteration. But it is perfectly clear that the Leader of the House has no control over the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  MR. CHURCHILLrose to speak, but was prevented by Ministerial interruptions from making himself heard.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Has the hon. Member risen to a point of order?
  MR. CHURCHILL: May I be permitted to withdraw the words "he would have broken the pledge in the spirit," which escapod from me at the moment. I should have said "it would have been broken in the spirit. "

  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 97.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 97.]
  Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, July 7th, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the
  978
  Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Llewellyn; and had appointed in substitution: Sir J. Fortescue Flannery.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provisions for the foundation of a Dean and Chapter of Newcastle, and for other purposes connected therewith." [Newcastle Chapter (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
NEW BILLS.
  CROWN LANDS BILL.
  "To amend the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1894," presented by Mr. Victor Cavendish: supported by Lord Balcarres; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.
  "To amend the Acts relating to Public Libraries by removing the existing limit to the amount of the Library Rate, "presented by Mr. Tennant; supported by Sir Albert Rollit, Sir William Houlds-Worth, Sir Alfred Thomas, Mr. Thornton, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Middlemore, Mr. Hunter Craig, and Mr. Haldane; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]
  SUPPLY [8th MARCH] REPORT.
  Order read, for Further Consideration of Resolution—

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1904–5 (SOMALILAND).
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £550, 000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the war ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for additional Expenditure in

  979
  respect of following Army services, Viz;—

  £

  Vote 1.

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  985, 000

  Vote 2.

  2. Medical Establishments Pay, etc.

  21, 000

  Vote 6.

  Transport and Remounts

  265, 000

  Vote 7.

  Provisions, Forage, and other supplies

  260, 000

  Vote 12.

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  2, 000

  Vote 14.

  Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other non-effective charges for Officers, etc.

  1, 000

  Vote 15.

  Pensions and other non-effective charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, and others

  2, 000

  1, 536, 000

  Less Surpluses on other Votes

  386, 000

  1, 150, 000

  Deduct Excess Appropriations in Aid

  600, 000

  £550, 000

  Resolution further considered—
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he had not quite finished his speech the other evening when he was interrupted by the rules of debate, but he did not think he need occupy many more minutes, especially as there were several hon. Members on his side of the House who wished to take the opportunity afforded by that Vote of bringing forward a number of grievances. He had refrained from going into questions of detail, but he might remind the House that only within the last hour or so one of his complaints had received confirmation in an Answer to a Question which disclosed the fact that a large quantity of suits of clothes were disposed of by the War Office after the end of the war in South Africa at a reduction of forty per. cent, on the cost price. He thought that it was an illustration of what was going on in the War Office at the present time. There was a growing feeling among both soldiers and civilians all
  980
  over the country that the War Office was not being managed economically and satisfactorily.
  Both sides of the House last year greeted the appointment of the new I Secretary for War with acclamation because they believed he was a reformer I who would carry out reforms in the direction of economy. The Secretary for War had been a consistent critic of the extravagance of the War Office, and he had pledged himself over and over again to do what be could to secure a thorough investigation in regard to these matters. In his speech in introducing the Estimates last year he confessed that they did not represent his idea of what ought to be the character or scale of expenditure on the Army. That led them to believe that in the right hon. Gentleman they had one who intended to enforce economy at the War Office in every possible way, and to secure the reduction of the very unnecessary expenditure which undoubtedly was there going on. The present year's Estimates, however, showed that the reductions which the right hon. Gentleman had been able to make during the first year of his office were infinitesimally small. It was true he prided himself last year on making a reduction on the normal Estimates of £280, 000, but the greater part of that was secured merely by wiping out altogether the Militia Reserves. This year they had a deficiency in the Estimates, and unfortunately they had no pledge for future economies. The new Estimates had already been printed, and they had been enabled to gather from them that there was to be no substantial reduction in the coming year. The intentions of the right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, been very good, but it was to be feared that there were those at the War Office who had secured control over him, and were preventing him from obtaining any substantial reductions.
  Unless substantial improvements were brought about swiftly, he feared that feeling in the country would rise to such an extent that the Army must suffer in years to come. They wanted not a slight reduction, but a very large curtailment, and the nation would insist upon that. This Vote

  981
  a fforded them the first opportunity they had had of showing their determination to secure a reasonable diminution in the Army Estimates. If they could only prevent excessive expenditure in the present year, they might rely upon it that in future years it would be a more easy task, and they would have submitted to them Estimates which were complete in themselves, and which would not have to be added to by Supplementary Estimates and additional Votes. He hoped the House would tell the gentlemen who now controlled the War Office that economies must be made, that the economies promised last year must be carried out, and he trusted that such a lesson would be given as would ensure the economic administration of the War Office in the future. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £250, 000.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£550, 000, ' and insert £300, 000. '"—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  Question proposed, "That £550, 000 stand part of the said Resolution. "
  MR. BUCHANAN: said he had an Amendment on the Paper which was covered by the Amendment of his hon. friend, with whose views he heartily sympathised. He, however, desired particularly to call attention to item B. B., namely, the grant of £60, 000 to the Rhodesian Railways. When the Estimate was presented earlier in the session he put a Question on the Paper asking the Secretary for War for explanations of the Vote, and he was told the right hon. Gentleman would give full details in Coimnittee. Unfortunately up to the present no opportunity had been offered for the submission of these explanations. This Vote illustrated, if anything could do so, a statement made two years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon when Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was almost as expensive to make peace as it was to make war. The would find that after the conclusion of the war all the public authorities in South Africa, all the various Colonial Governments and other bodies, with one accord sat on the Imperial Exchequer in order to get as much out of it as possible.
  982
  They thought it a fair game and they played it as hard as they could. In one particular instance, the Natal Government made extensive claims, and within a few weeks offered to compromise the whole matter, for exactly one-half, and Lord Kitchener suggested that the better plan was to close with that offer as quickly as possible. Now, this grant raised a very similar question, although on a somewhat smaller scale. The Rhodesian Railway was practically the Chartered Company, it was at any rate subsidiary to the Chartered Company, and the majority of the shares in it were held by or guaranteed by that company. The company received a grant of £20, 000 every year from the Imperial Exchequer, and had done so ever since 1897. Technically, indeed, the grant came out of the funds of the Bechuana-land Protectorate, but inasmuch as the grants to that Protectorate varied from £30, 000 to £70, 000, it would be seen that they sufficed to cover the grant to the Rhodesian Railway Company.
  Now, in regard to this particular claim. It first came under the notice of the House more than two years since, and it was brought up in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It was a claim for compensation for the use of the railway during the time of the siege of Mafeking. Practically this country had the sole use of the railway from October 1st, 1899, down to the month of June, 1900. When the claim was under consideration the authorities of this country took up the position, after consultation with the Military Director of Railways in South Africa, that while it was proper that compensation should be granted, it should be calculated on the actual cost of working the railway, and that it should not be based solely on the nine months whilst we were in military occupation, but that the figures for a complete year should be taken into consideration. That position was agreed to by the War Office, the Treasury, and the Colonial Office, and on that basis it was worked out that the balance due to the company amounted to £24, 817 3s. 8d. That sum was offered to the Rhodesian Railway Company. He would like to make clear exactly what happened. The company

  983
  claimed that there was a loss on the undertaking during the whole period in which we occupied the line, and they asked to be recouped the loss of that period. But on our side it was submitted that at the end of the occupation the line was handed back to the company with a considerable accumulation of traffic which to a large extent compensated for the loss which had been suffered during the antecedent period, and therefore any claim for adjustment should be made for the whole year and not merely for the nine months. The company further made rather a large demand. They wanted to be compensated for the loss they suffered during the war over the whole of their railway system. That, to his mind, was a preposterous demand which could not be entertained by the Government for one moment.
  But what had been the history of the question since then? Last year, in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General presented to the Public Accounts Committee, they were told that the thing had not been settled, and when they pressed the Director of Public Accounts of the War Office for further information, he replied on June 10th, that both sides had agreed to arbitration, and he suggested that he should not be pressed to give further information on the subject because the moment was not convenient for the discussion of it. The Committee agreed, consequently, not to press the demand for further information, and they had no further information up to the time of the receipt of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, when they ascertained that after protracted negotiations the claims of the company had been settled in August last by the payment of £60, 000. The Report went on to say that it would be remembered that the sum of £75, 000 was advanced to the company in 1901, and that, added to the £60, 000 now paid, made a total charge of £135, 000 for the use of the line for the nine months during which it was occupied by the military in connection with the siege of Mafeking, and that was in addition to the grant of £20, 000 made annually cut of the Public Exchequer. He thought this was a case in which the war in South Africa had proved a somewhat valuable asset to the railway com-
  984
  pany, and, bearing in mind the fact that those largely interested in the company were to a great extent the cause of the war, it did not seem right that they should make a really substantial profit in that manner. We had had to bear the burden of the war not only in loss of life, but also in loss of treasure, and then we found that those who were primarily the cause of the conflict, and in whose interests we undertook the fighting, were endavouring to get the last possible farthing out of the taxpayers of this country.
  He did think that this was a matter which required explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, and he would like to put to him one or two specific Questions. First, was the offer of arbitration ever accepted, and if it was, why was it abandoned? In the second place, why did the War Office depart from the position, taken up on the recommendation of the Military Director of Railways in South Africa, to accept liability only on the basis of the actual cost of working the line, which amounted to £24, 800? Why was that arrangement departed from? The Secretary for War had told them that further claims amounting to £23, 000 were put in by the company. They would like to know what those claims were for, and he desired to point out further that even the £23, 000 added to the £24, 000 did not make up the £60, 000 which had actually been paid. How was the balance of nearly £13, 000 accounted for? Was the company demanding interest, or what was the ground upon which this large sum had been paid? What was the explanation of the extraordinary change of policy which had taken place in this matter? He thought that the people of this country had a claim to examine into the whole question.
  *MR. LYELLthought hon. Members were under a large obligation to the hon. Member for Lichfield for the somewhat sweeping character of the reduction he had moved. He had, no doubt, put it at that substantial figure so that it might afford opportunity for hon. Members to give expression to the dissatisfaction they felt at various matters connected with the administration of the War Office.

  985
  He was not quite sure that his hon. friend had made his case quite big enough. The various changes in the Government had been so completely rapid and kaleidiscopic, and the information imparted to the House had been so meagre, that he might be pardoned if he asked for a little more information in regard to Somaliland. A short time ago they had a scheme of punitive expeditions there against the Mullah, who was declared to be mad. The result was that they spent something like £3, 000, 000 in endeavouring to catch and detain him during His Majesty's pleasure. They were told that the Government went to war with the Mullah to protect the tribes with whom we had treaties. The hon. Member for Stepney insisted the other day how extremely important it was to keep faith with native tribes; and how anything in the way of branch of faith with them was known in India, talked about, and might lead to dire consequences. We agreed, believed, and trembled from fear of what might happen when the inhabitants of India knew of the attitude the Government had taken up with reference to the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the same day told the House that we undertook these expeditions in Somaliland not to acquire territory but to do something better—to maintain our reputation among certain tribes in Somaliland for keeping engagements. But the Somali parsnips went unbuttered, because the noble Lord went on to announce a general policy of scuttle in Somaliland, tempered by a free distribution of rifles. That was an extremely important announcement. The last transformation, however, was announced not, as hon. Members would have thought it right, to this House but to the Press. That was that an agent representing the Italian Government had come to an arrangement with the Mullah; in fact, had entered into a written treaty between the Italian Government and the Mullah, with the subsequent cordial assent of the British Government, by which the Mullah's sovereignty or authority over a large tract of what the late Marquess of Salisbury called "light land", in that part of Africa was to be recognised, and, in return, the Mullah
  986
  promised not to raid the British and Italian protected tribes.
  He thought the Government must excuse him if he asked for more information as to that treaty. Why was it not entered into before? It was not for want of examples on the North-West Frontier of India, where the tribes, for fighting and other powers, could give points to any native tribes in Somaliland. In an interesting speech on the Financial Statement for India for the year 1901–2, Lord Curzon gave an account of the Mahsud Waziri tribes on the North-West Frontier who had raided posts, stolen rifles, carried off women, and had generally played the same game as the Mullah had done in Somaliland. The Indian Government decided not to adopt the plan of a punitive expedition, for that had never proved satisfactory; but they proceeded to blockade the Waziri country for fifteen months. That was an extremely cheap form of coercion. A village or two was burned, and the tribal subsidy which the Waziri had enjoyed of 10, 000 rupees a month for keeping the caravan trade routes open was stopped. At the end of fifteen months these tribes submitted, made restitution of the stolen rifles, paid a fine, and promised to behave themselves in future. Lord Curzon made it plain that it was the financial pressure which prevailed. What he wanted to know was whether anything of the kind was going to be arranged with the Mullah; whether there was to be any financial control over him; and whether he was to be paid any subsidy for keeping the caravan routes open?
  Then the noble Lord also told the House that there was to be an issue of arms to the tribes. Was the House to understand that these arms were to be something in the nature of a substitute for the withdrawal of our protection from the tribes with whom we had entered into that engagement? Before the announcement of the agreement with the Mullah he had considered the arms were a very poor substitute for the Government's promise of protection to these tribes; but they could hardly expect that the Government should keep their promise to a handful of savage tribes when

  987
  they had already broken a promise made to free-fooders nearer home. The Government displayed great anxiety to protect the tribes in Somaliland, but had made no arrangement to protect their friends from the raids of the Mullah of Birmingham. He wanted to know whether this arrangement for the distribution of arms to the native tribes had been altered or varied in any way. The noble Lord had practically refused any information as to the number of rifles that had been distributed and had told him that on reflection he would see that that was not a proper Question to ask. He had been reflecting ever since and could not find any reason why that Question should not have been answered. The noble Lord was on the horns of a dilemma. Were the rifles to be distributed to the tribes effective or non-effective weapons? If they were only something of the nature of trade muskets, they must have been issued merely for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of people at home. But if they were in the nature of weapons of precision, then he asked the noble Lord whether he was not of opinion that that was a contravention of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Act of the Brussels Conference of 1890. That Conference dealt with four-fifths of Africa, including Somaliland, and the Various signatory Powers parties to that Conference, of which Great Britain was one, bound themselves not to allow any importation of weapons of precision, and a fortiori not to distribute them themselves among the inhabitants of the countries with which the Conference Act dealt. It was possible that the noble Lord would shelter himself under the exceptions named in Article 9 of the Act. The exceptions were arms carried by travellers, or by those who could give guarantees that the arms were not to be traded to the natives, or were for the use of an organised force. He did not think it possible that these exceptions could cover the distribution of arms to certain selected tribes in Somaliland. Again, had the noble Lord informed the other signatory Powers to the Brussels Conference Act of his intention to arm certain selected tribes in Somaliland? He was sure, with
  988
  the knowledge he had of those tribes under our protection, that this arming policy might be extremely dangerous and lead to considerable loss of life in intertribal disputes.
  But, again he asked, why was all this not done years ago? Why should we now have to learn our business in colonial administration from the Italian Government which bad so few colonies? What information was now at the disposal of His Majesty's Government which was not at their disposal years ago? Colonel Hayes Sadler reported on April 12th, 1899, when the Mullah first made his appearance, that the Mullah had settled disputes among the tribes, had kept them from raiding each other, and was generally thought to be in support of law and order. And he had even sent in a prisoner to Berbera. The Mullah was then considered to be a man with wham it was perfectly possible to deal and who was actually willing to enter into something like an Extradition Treaty with us. Why was not an arrangement arrived with him at that time? Until a satisfactory Answer to some of these Questions were given he would certainly support the reduction.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that to many Members of the House the original Army Estimates appeared excessive, but now that excessive burden was to be aggravated by additional expenditure such as this Supplementary Vote of £1, 500, 000. He was afraid that this Supplementary Vote, as well as others, often stood for waste. He would submit that this Motion for a substantial reduction should be supported by all who were in favour of efficiency and economy in the Army. The House had discussed Army reform for years—every kind of change in the system at the War Office, every kind of Army reform had been suggested, every kind of promise had been given as to efficiency and economy, but it had all come to nothing. These discussions were to a great extent idle; and under the circumstances the House might well despair of securing any economy or effective reform. He was very glad this substantial reduction had been moved and he would support it.
  MR. POWERsaid he wished to revert to a matter which was of great interest to his constituency, He desired to know what steps were being taken by the War Office to see that animals now being brought back from Africa were in a healthy condition. No such steps were taken after the South African War; and the result was that what was known as the "African horse disease" had appeared in his constituency. Only ten days ago he saw in the stables of the Marquess of Waterford two horses suffering from this disease, and they had to be slaughtered. They were told that the animals should be slaughtered and that half the money would be refunded, but he thought the entire value should he given. That would make the owners more ready to inform the authorities when a case of disease appeared.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he hoped the noble Lord would be able to explain rather more definitely than he had what was the policy of the Government in respect to the native tribes in Somaliland. A fortnight ago, he himself alluded to the way in which the tribes had been victimised by constant changes of policy on the part of the Government. On that occasion the noble Lord stated that in 1901 the policy had been tried of defending the frontier, but it had to be abandoned owing to the difficulty involved in protecting a range of 500 miles and the expense incurred in maintaining a garrison of 10, 000 men. The Government on that occasion stated that they had not in any way thrown over their obligations to the native tribes under the treaties of 1886; but they also declared that responsibility would be confined to the coast line and that in the event of any difficulties occurring in the Hinterland they would be prepared to deal with them by means of punitive expeditions. That policy had, however, been found to be very extravagant; and now another policy had been adopted. That was to arm the tribes and to organise them so that they might be in a position to defend themselves in any future emergency. That was a frank and plain declaration which he thought the House understood; but on
  990
  Tuesday last he asked the noble Lord as to the area in which the natives would look after their own interests; and the noble Lord said that the natives had the right to protection from this Government throughout the area in which we had treaty engagements. So far as he understood the noble Lord, he now repudiated the policy he laid down a fortnight ago. What was the exact attitude of the Government towards the tribes? Were the tribes which had been armed to be protected or were they to be left to protect themselves? That was a joint which ought to be cleared up. The House should also be informed as to the terms which had been entered into by the Italian Government, and also whether this Government assented to them.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.)said he would try to explain the policy of His Majesty's Government, but he thought he had already made it sufficiently clear. There had been no question of a repudiation of their obligations. It was said that they had over and over again changed their policy; but there were only two possible policies. The first was that which Liberal as well as Conservative Governments had hitherto followed, that of depriving the tribes of their arms and leaving them defenceless. The second policy, the policy which they had now adopted, was that of placing the tribes in possession of a certain number of rifles and superintending an organisation which they hoped would enable them to meet any raid that was likely to be brought against them in the future. It was quite impossible for him to forecast the extent to which in the event of another raid by another Mullah the Government might feel bound to come to their defence if their own resources were not sufficient; but he certainly did not think these tribes would have any claim upon His Majesty's Government to repeat the expenditure of life and money which they had recently incurred if they had not made good use of the opportunities now placed in their hands.
  The hon. Member for East Dorset had asked him about the number and character of the rifles issued. He did not understand his Question the other

  991
  day as meaning whether they were toy rifles or not. No one would suppose that so absurd a policy was contemplated as supplying rifles that would be useless; most of them were of the Martini-Henri pattern. The only thing he said with regard to these rifles was that he thought it was inexpedient to give detailed information as to the exact number supplied, and bethought this was a proposition which would not be demurred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The number was not very large and the distribution was under the charge of General Swayne, Another Question had been asked him with regard to the Brussels Conference, whether the supply of arms was not a contravention of an Article of that Act. This article had been read by an hon. Member, and it really supplied the answer. There were two exceptions under the provisions of that Act, and it was under the first that they justified this limited issue of rifles. The paragraph in Article 9 of the General Act of the Brussels Conference was in the following terms—
  "Besides the measures directly taken by Government for the arming of the public force and the organisation for their defence, individual exception shall be admitted for persons affording sufficient guarantees that the arms and ammunition delivered to them will not be given, assigned, or sold to third persons, etc, etc. "
  MR. LYELLasked whether the noble Lord meant to say that the phrase force publique in that Article covered the distribution of arms to individuals as distinct from an organised force.
  *EARL PERCYsaid his own opinion was that the phrase was susceptible of different interpretations. It was applied to sentries in districts of West Africa, leased to concessionary Companies. He should certainly interpret it as applicable to a tribal organisation for self-defence.
  MR. GUESTsaid he did not understand the present position of the Government with regard to Somaliland. Had the whole expeditionary force been withdrawn? And what force was to be maintained under the present policy.
  *EARL PERCYsaid he explained these matters at some length when the question was formerly debated. He
  992
  explained that they were maintaining a permanent garrison in Somaliland of about 500 men, and, in addition, for one year they had an Indian regiment, a force of about 800, which would be withdrawn as soon as the organisation of the tribes was complete. The expeditionary force was withdrawn last July. With regard to the terms of peace, he was afraid he could not give the information asked for. It was rather peculiar, but they were without the actual details; all that they actually knew was that the Mullah had signed peace with the representative of the Italian Government, and that he had sent a deputation to Berbera to sign peace with General Swayne.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid they had been told that the Government were going to change their policy in Somaliland and provide the tribes with arms in order that they might defend themselves. There was no use crying over spilt milk, but he wished to point out that what had taken place in respect to our relations with Somaliland was an object-lesson for the people outside this House to bear in mind. The Mullah had a religion of his own, and he exercised sway over waterless deserts which nobody could want. We said he was a madman, and we thought, because we said so, that somebody should put him in a madhouse. We sent two expeditions against him and he beat us. We found it impossible to get the better of him. Now the Italian Government stepped in and did precisely what we ought to have done. We ought to have asked what frontiers he wanted, but as long as we treated him as a fanatic we could not come to terms with him. The whole thing was reported in the Italian newspaper Tribuna some days ago, and it was surprising that General Swayne had not sent the information. The Government were always behind with their information. The only thing they could do would be to turn out the present Government as fast as they could, or other parts of the world would be lost also. There was a strong case against the Government in regard to the Rhodeasian railways. The military people said that the utmost we owed for them was £24, 000. An additional claim was put in for £23, 000 and we proposed to go to arbitration.

  993
  That proposal seemed to have been dropped, and eventually £60, 000 was paid. He did not know why we should subsidise these railroads. He asked the Secretary of State for War the other day what was the amount of the guarantee by the Chartered Company, and the right hon. Gentleman referred him to the company, stating that they would be delighted to furnish him with the information. The secretary of the company had said that he would refer to the board, but the hon. Member believed that unless the representative of the Government used influence with the company to get the Return he would not get it. The Chartered Company had, he understood, guaranteed all the debentures, and he wanted to know what the amount of that guarantee was.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he wanted to call attention to the item in the Vote of £20, 000 for medical establishments and pay, which, he thought, required some explanation. He hoped the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was in a position to give it. He found from the detailed statement that the sum was mainly for the purpose of paying civil surgeons. It was a remarkable fact that some years after the war was over the expenditure for civil surgeons should be increasing. In the Estimates for the year before the one they were now discussing the expenditure for civil surgeons was £42, 000, and that in time of peace. Last year it was reduced to £36, 000, but now, on account of their marvellous want of foresight as to the expenditure on civil surgeons, the Department came in for an additional Vote of £20, 000. That showed a slipshod and slovenly way of conducting public business. The other day the Secretary of State for War informed him that he had added 462 medical officers to the staff; but there must have been some mistake in his figures, for on looking at the Army List he found the total strength was 777 for the year 1904–5, 770 for the previous year, and 710 for the year before that. But if the Army Medical Staff was being increased, why was an extra £20, 000 wanted for civil surgeons? There must be some explanation for this enormous increase. It arose to some extent out of the policy
  994
  of the Advisory Board of not having Army medical officers at small stations, the plea being that they would get rusty. But a man who was in earnest about his profession would not get rusty anywhere. Apparently the Army medical officers were not stationed in small districts, but were kept in large districts, where probably they would not get rusty, and they had to employ civil surgeons to do the work which ought to be done by the Army medical officers. In Yorkshire and some great towns elsewhere, they saw a retired medical officer doing recruiting examinations, and civil surgeons looking after the wives and children of soldiers, while the soldiers themselves had occasionally to be sent to the nearest large town to go into a civil hospital, instead of being treated by their own medical officers as they ought to be. The whole system wanted careful inquiring into. This gross and hitherto inexplicable extravagance in the employment of civil surgeons was one that he hoped would be explained in order that they might understand why some £20, 000 extra was being spent on a department, which, if the Army Medical Corps was efficient, ought not to be required at all.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid the knowledge of the hon. Member for Northampton was encyclopædic, but he was not quite right about the Mullah. The Mullah was not by any means a chieftain. He was a stevedore at Aden, and a camel driver on the Somali coast; he was called mad, but he was not mad at all. That was only a figure of speech in those countries for people who happened to be religious.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that an honest working man was the worse for being religious.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid that was not the case at all; he merely suggested that the hon. Gentleman should follow his example. For all he had heard the Mullah was a hard nut to crack and very difficult to get on with, but he was not a chieftain as represented by the hon. Member for Northampton. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were very difficult to

  995
  please. They objected to the Government arming the tribes and withdrawing the troops; they equally objected to the three expensive and unsatisfactory expeditions against the Mullah. As to the suggestion that the Mullah's country should be blockaded, it was absolutely impossible to blockade a territory 500 miles long by 300 wide with two or three battalions of native troops. Another suggestion was that Lord Curzon's policy of withdrawing subsidies should be followed, but they could not withdraw a subsidy which had-never been given. He thought the noble Lord was possibly a little premature in withdrawing so many troops from the Somali coast. There were only certain battalions of native troops to hold something like 400 miles of lines of communication. The whole business was in the nature of a Gilbert and Sullivan opéacutera bouffe. The Amir of Abyssinia attacked the Mullah; the Mullah attacked the tribes on the Somali coast under our protection; no one knew why, but he did so, and the Government were bound to protect them. The coast line of the Red Sea was especially valuable as being the open door to Abyssinia, and it we did not look after it other people would. Abyssinia was a country with which a good deal might be done, and if we did not look after it somebody else would. A short time ago he suggested that it would be as well if the Mullah could be arranged with or "squared."That appeared to have been an intelligent anticipation of events, as the Mullah had been squared by the Italians. If Colonel Swayne or somebody else could make a similar arrangement it would save this country a great deal of money and be a good thing all round.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid that it making a few remarks on the item of pay for civilian Medical Officers he had no wish to revive the echoes of a past controversy except so far as they bore upon the present position of the Army Medical Service. The House would if member that in that, controversy three distinct objects were put forward. The first and most pressing was the amelioration of the condition of the 20, 000 sick and wounded at that time lying in the military hospitals in South Africa. That object was immediately secured,
  996
  for within a fortnight or three weeks after the attention of the public had been drawn to the matter a complete transformation was effected in the hospitals concerned. The second object was to secure a permanent and organic reform of the Army Medical Service. That also had been largely secured, and in that connection the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for India, however much he might have invited criticism by his other schemes of Army reform, deserved great credit for the sincere and practical manner in which he carried out the reform of the Army Medical Department. The third object was so to materialise the lessons of the war that, should the country be called upon to engage in any such struggle in the future, it would be impossible for the medical disasters of the South African campaign to be repeated. He regretted to say with regard to that object we were not in a much better position than before or during the war. Everyone would admit that it was impossible to maintain during peace an Army or military departments equal to all the demands of a great war. If that were true in a general sense, it was especially true of the Medical Department. This was a matter which went to the root not only of the efficiency of the medical service, but also of the effective protection of the taxpayer. It was in no way necessary in peace time to maintain the Army Medical Department at war strength; and it so happened that that department was more easy of expansion than any other incase of need. Artillery and trained artillerymen and engineers could not be secured at a moment's notice, but there was at all times an adequate supply of civilian medical men, ready and willing, often at considerable sacrifice, to give their services in time of war. That was the case about the time of the South African War, but because there was no system or organisation for utilising the services of civilian medical men the Army Medical Service broke down. Two years ago the then Secretary of State for War assured the House that he fully realised the importance of this matter, and that at the beginning of the next session he proposed to introduce a scheme for the proper organisation of civilian surgeons

  997
  in time of war, but nothing had since been heard of the matter.
  There were two ways in which civilians could be utilised in time of war. One was in the form of separate and solid units, possibly controlled by an officer from the Army Medical Department in matters affecting their status as Army hospitals, but otherwise self-governed and self-contained, entirely dependent upon civilian medical officers. That method was admirably illustrated by the voluntary hospitals in the South African War. There was another way, namely, that civilian practitioners should be obtained and absorbed, so to speak, into the regular Army Medical Service, and should have their proper places apportioned to them in military hospitals so that they could work together in a campaign without any friction and with the best possible results to the sick and wounded. The absence of a system of that sort in the last war produced the most dire results. There might be very few hon. Members who had watched this question closely, but he wished to remind the Committee of a curious case, typical of many others, which was brought before the Hospital Commission, in which in the largest hospital in Bloemfontein civilian medical officers carried on the hospital, interspersed with the Regular Army Medical officers. Owing, however, to there having been no system whereby their proper places could be ascertained and arranged the friction between these two classes of medical men was so great that this particular hospital was entirely disorganised; and when the Surgeon-General, who was the chief of the Army Medical Officers in South Africa, was examined, he admitted that he was perfectly helpless to suggest a remedy and that the friction must go on until the machine broke down. All this could be obviated by a little care and prevision, and by taking into counsel the heads of the civilian medical profession in this country in conjunction with the heads of the Army Medical Department. Those who had watched what had happened in South Africa would admit that some organised plan of this sort, which should be accepted by the Army Medical Department and acceptable to and sympathised with by the civilian, medical profession, was absolutely neces-
  998
  sary to prepare this country for a great war so far as the medical service Was concerned.
  He would not enlarge upon this subject, but he would put it to his hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he could inform the Committee what progress had been made in this matter, or at least if the hon. Member could assure them that the Secretary of State realised the important bearing this question had upon the preparedness of the country for a great war. He was aware I that there had been in the archives of the War Office since the latter part of the year 1900 a scheme drawn up by an extremely able civilian medical officer of great war experience, Dr. George Stoker, who in the first place originally suggested and drew up the lines, explained in a letter to The Times, of the system upon which the whole arrangements for the voluntary hospitals were carried out, who assisted to organise the first hospital, and suggested to Lord Iveagh the scheme of his Irish hospital, and accompanied it throughout the South African War. That gentleman was one of the finest ambulance leaders whom he saw in the Russo-Turkish War, and he had studied this question, and he placed before the War Office a scheme of civilian medical aid upon the lines on which he thought any scheme in the future must be drawn. He desired to ask whether the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office, or of the Secretary of State for War, had really been directed to this matter.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield)said no one would question the great importance of the subject to which the Member for Westminster had referred, and the importance of the speech he had delivered upon a question to which he had devoted much time and attention with the object of securing improvements where they had been very badly required. This was a question in which the Secretary of State for War had been interesting himself very much indeed, and he thought his right hon. friend would be able to give him at a later stage on the Estimates the assurance he had asked for. The question of the Army Medical Corps

  999
  resolved itself into two parts:(1) what was required in time of peace; and (2) what was required in time of war. Ia regard to the Royal Army Medical Corps, in time of war the establishment had to be kept enormously large, and in time of peace this was not necessary. He did not think hon. Members who had raised this question would contend that the establishment of the Army Medical Corps ought to be so great in time of peace as to enable it to deal with the requirements of war. He thought, also, that they would agree with him that, in case of war, it was most desirable that they should call in the assistance of those civil doctors who, during the South African War, rendered such splendid service to the country. He thought the Association of the Royal Army Medical Corps with the civilian branch, upon that occasion, had been of very great service to both branches of that great profession. He understood one of the complaints was that this Estimate indicated that the Royal Army Medical Corps was insufficient in establishment and strength. That was the principal reason which had necessitated this Supplementary Estimate. They could not maintain a larger number of men than that for which they had estimated without affecting not merely one, but all the Votes on the Estimates. It was, therefore, unfair on this account to say that the War Office had been proved to be incompetent. In the same way the necessity of maintaining in South Africa a larger number of men than they had estimated for affected all the Votes. In regard to this particular Vote they had anticipated that at the beginning of the year the garrison in South Africa would be very largely reduced; but as a matter of fact it was not reduced for many months after. The necessity for maintaining a considerably larger garrison than was estimated for had made greater demands than were expected upon the medical service. He agree that the Royal Army Medical Corps was not sufficiently large, and its strength had not been kept up to its establishment, but during the coming year he believed proposals would be made by the Secretary of State for War to increase the establishment, and he hoped they would be able to
  1000
  recruit a sufficient number of medical officers to meet, all requirements.
  With regard to the importation of disease amongst horses in Ireland, it was generally accepted by the veterinary surgeons that it had originated in South Africa, but there was no means of proving it. He could assure the House that no further disease was likely to be introduced, because horses were not to be brought from South Africa to Ireland at all in the future. All the horses which were no longer required in South Africa would, in the future, be sold there. As to the question of compensation, he was, of course, not in a position to say anything about that. The question could only arise if a man who had lose a horse could prove that it was directly due to some action on the part of the War Office Department in bringing horses suffering from disease into Ireland. He did not say that under no circumstances would any person get compensation, but he thought it would be extremely difficult to prove that any compensation was due.
  Turning to the question of the payment of £60, 000 to the Rhodesia Railway Company, he had been asked to give a full statement. He would endeavour to do so, and he would make his statement as short as he could. This sum represented a payment to the Rhodesia Railway Company for services rendered by this company during the war. During the early part of the war, military exigencies required the use, by the military authorities, of certain portions of the railway owned and controlled by the Rhodesia Railway Company. It should be remembered that by the terms of the contract these railways were entitled to charge two-third rates upon all Imperial troops and military stores carried along their system. They made no claim for damage or deterioration of their railway or rolling stock under the conditions in which in time of war the railway was used for transport. All they claimed was that any actual loss they suffered should be made good to them and that out-of-pocket expenses which they had incurred by payments made for services rendered to the military authorities in connection with the working of the line, should be repaid. No claim for profit had been made. The

  1001
  War Department had regarded this question from the point of view of how much was due to the railway company for services rendered—services which were not exclusively railway services, but which included such items as cutting wood for fuel, building forts, sinking wells, labour and materials supplied for armoured trains and provisions supplied, as well as stores and troops carried along the line. The claims of the railway company were divided into three. First, there was a claim for the actual out-of-pocket expenses during the period of military control from October 14th to June 12th, £110, 771 13s. 6d., second, the actual out-of-pocket expenses after June 12th, 1000, £22, 917 16s. 16d., and third, the payment of debenture interest during that portion of the time when, by reason of military occupation of the railway, they were unable to earn revenue for themselves, £66, 027. The total claim therefore amounted to £199, 716. Lord Kitchener dealt with the first claim for £75, 000, and left the two subsequent claims to be dealt with by the War Department. Those claims amounted to £88, 947, and they had now been finally settled by a payment of £60, 000. There was no doubt whatever as to the liability of the Government to pay. The only question was whether the amount paid was adequate or excessive. He never felt more certain of anything in his life than the fact that he had made an extraordinarily good bargain when ho finally settled the claims for £60, 000. The whole of the case had been before the Law Officers of the Crown, who advised that it was one which should be dealt with by way of a compromise. The War Department had therefore regarded it simply from the point of view of the value of the services rendered, and the total claim of nearly £200, 000 had been settled for £135, 000.
  With regard to the question of subsidy raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, the subsidy of £20, 000 a year to the railway was only for ten years, and it
  was a subsidy not direct from the Imperial Government, but from the Protectorate to the railway company. The only way in which the Government was brought into the matter was that it had always been an accepted principle that no Crown Colony or British Protectorate should ever be allowed to make default, and therefore it was necessary in the case of Bechuanaland to make a contribution from the Imperial Exchequer to the Protectorate, and it might be held that that included the £20, 000 due from the Protectorate Government to the railway. The Government did seriously consider advancing the proposition that this £20, 000 ought to be regarded as income, but legal opinion was against them. With regard to the offer to settle the claim of the railway for £24, 000, it was perfectly true that at one time such an offer was made, but that offer covered only a part and not the whole of the claim of the railway company. It was based also on a contention that could not afterwards be sustained. The company advanced the argument that it was not fair that they should bear the burden of the working expenditure for the railway on which there was no profit during the war, and that we should have the benefit of the traffic which followed after the war. The War Department claimed that we should take all the receipts of the line during the railway year, that the receipts should be put on one side, and the debenture interest, which was £100, 000, on the other. The receipts amounted to £76, 000, and the War Department offered to pay the extra £24, 000 but legal opinion was against that and it was abandoned. He was satisfied that the settlement which had been arrived at was a wise and a just one and would be so considered in the long run.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 241; NOes 208. (Division List No. 80.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Balcarres, Lord

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bagot, "Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Baldwin, Alfred

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Barry, Sir Trancis T. (Windsor)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Greene, W. Raymoad-(Cam bs.)

  Murray, Charles J (Coventry)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Col Wnydham (Bath)

  Bill, Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Myers, William Henry

  Bingham, Lord

  Hain, Edward

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Blundell. Colonel Henry

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Boscaawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Brassey, Albert

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Peel, Hn Win Robert Wellesley

  Brodrick, Rt, Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Percy, Earl

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N. W

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Butcher, John George

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hope. J F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Horner, Frederick William

  Purvis, Robert

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hoult, Joseph

  Randles, John S.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversha)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Chapman, Edward

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jeffreys, Rt, Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Colomb, Rt Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kenyon, Hon Geo T (Denbigh)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn Col W

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Kerr, John

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Samuel, Sir HarryS. (Limehouse)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Lawrence, Wm F (Liverpool)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, Hn. H L W (Mile End)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N R

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants Fareham)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Legge, Col Hon Heneage

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

  Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S

  Spear, John Ward

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col A R

  Stewart, Sir J. Mark M Taggart

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stock, James Henry

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)

  Long, Col Charles W (Evesham)

  Stroyan, John

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol S)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Lowther, C (Cumb, Eskdale)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Finch, Rt Hon. George H.

  Lyttelton, Rt Hon Alfred

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tuff, Charles

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maconochie, A W

  Turnour, Viscount

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  M'Calmont, Col James

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Majendie, James A H

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Forster, Henry William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Gardner Ernest

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

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

  Garfit, William

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund, Lyne)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Godson, Sir Angustus Frederick

  Milner, Rt Hon Sir Frederick G

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

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

  Montagu, Hon J Scott (Hants)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  1004

  1005

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Down, John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Malley, William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Hammond, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barlaw, John Emmott

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Partington, Oswald

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Boll, Richard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Perks, Robert William

  Benn, John Williams

  Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Blake, Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Price, Robert John

  Brigg, John

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bright, Allen Heywood

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

  Rea, Russell

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West.)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reddy, M.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley).

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Damfries

  Burns, John

  Johnson, John

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Burt, Thomas

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Buxton, Sydney Charle

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roche, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kilbride, Denis

  Runciman, Walter

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kitson, Sir James

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Labouchere, Henry

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleof Wight)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lamont, Norman

  Shackleton, David James

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Sheehy, David

  Crombie, John William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crooks, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Slack, John Bamford

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Lundon, W.

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C R. (Northants)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Donelan, Capatin A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Crae, George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Kean, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Edwards, Frank

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Elibank, Master of

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Toulmin, George

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Ure, Alexander

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Norman, Henry

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Whiteley George (York W. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick, (Kilkenny)

  Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dors

  1006

  1007

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

  Wood, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —Mr.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Young, Samuel

  Causton.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  MR. WHITLEY, said he wished to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government authorised the negotiations to be undertaken with the so-called Mad Mullah through an Italian intermediary; if so, how long ago was it; and what was the nature of the instructions given by the Government either to this particular Italian diplomatist, or to the Italian Government? He was rather surprised that when they were last considering this subject the noble Lord did not take the House of Commons into his confidence and tell them that these negotiations were proceeding. He thought it was rather infra dig. for His Majesty's Government to carry on negotiations through a third party. When they were challenged on their policy, the Government ought to have made a frank statement to the House and given the reasons for which they had taken this unusual course for bringing about a settlement. He did not challenge the result in, the least. He thought it was a policy which ought to have been carried out long ago. Three times this session the representative of the Government had answered Questions on their policy in Somaliland, and yet, though he knew that these negotiations were going on, and that they had authorised an Italian officer to conduct them, he withheld these most material facts from the House of Commons. What he wanted to know was, when the Government first began these negotiations through a third party; from whom the first suggestion came; and what was the nature of the instructions given either to the Italian Government or to this particular officer that peace should be concluded on our behalf with the Mad Mullah.
  *EARL PERCYsaid that these negotiations with the Mullah were not conducted by His Majesty's Government. The Mullah was in Italian territory, and the negotiations were carried on directly by the Italian Government through their representative in East Africa. They informed this Government last July of their
  1008
  intention to enter into negotiations with the Mullah, and they communicated to us some three months later the general tenor of the proposals the Mullah had made. His Majesty's Government authorised General Swayne to act in concert with the Italian officer who was on the spot. The Government understood now that the negotiations had been brought to a successful termination, and that besides signing the treaty concluded with the Italian representative, the Mullah, had sent a special deputation to conclude peace at Berbera. We did not know the actual details of the arrangements made.
  MR. WHITLEY: Then His Majesty's Government did not originate these negotiations?
  *EARL PERCY: No.
  MR. LYELLasked whether the Government had given consideration to the question of offering subsidies to the Mullah for keeping the caravan routes open?
  *EARL PERCYsaid he did not know the actual details of the arrangement. He believed the Mullah's original proposal did contemplate some monetary guarantee.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he had read the despatches, and had listened to the debate; but he could not ascertain what had been the policy of the Government with reference to Somaliland in the past, or what it was to be in the future. He said that as one who frankly confessed he had great sympathy with the Government in connection with Somaliland, he himself, having had considerable experience of North African tribes, recognised the difficulties the Government found themselves in. While Berbera and the adjacent country was under the India Office very little difficulty had been experienced in keeping the tribes in order. He found it stated in the Blue-book that owing to tribal and Mohammedan feeling it was inexpedient to rely on the Somalis alone;

  1009
  but that little difficulty had been experienced in keeping the Mullah out of territory under the protection of this country. It was absolutely necessary, if this country was to hold Aden and to maintain its prestige, that it should also hold Berbera and occupy a position of importance with the tribes in the vicinity. The Somalis who were not to be relied on had, however, driven the Mullah out of territory under British protection on two occasions. Now the Government were back at the position they were before the recent operations were commenced. The difficulties which arose were caused by the fact that Colonel Swayne was not properly supported in the first instance. Of course, the Government were engaged elsewhere and had no definite programme as regarded Somaliland; but the Mullah could have been overwhelmed if Colonel Swayne had been supplied with sufficient forces. About that there could not be the shadow of a doubt. It was also shown in Major-General Egerton's letter that if the steps now being taken in conjunction with the Italian Government had been taken previously all the difficulties which had to be subsequently confronted would never have arisen. If was further stated that the capture or surrender of the Mullah was not the only object of the expedition. What was the other object? The only way in which the Government should have proceeded was to overwhelm the Mullah, and to give the tribes to understand that we were masters of the situation.
  After an expenditure of £2, 500, 000 the Government were now in the position they were originally. That was because the Government did not know their own policy. They deserted the policy which had been so successful in dealing with tribes in Northern India and elsewhere, and proceeded on a punitive expedition. Now this country was thrown back on the assistance of our Italian friends. He recollected hon. Members over and over again pressing the Government to do that which they were now doing; and he ventured to predict that, whenever it suited the Mullah to reappear, this country would be obliged to carry out another expedition on an even more costly scale. All who had experience of dealing with native tribes knew that there was only one of two policies to adopt—either to make them friends and pay them handsomely, or to crush them unmercifully and let them understand that we were masters of the situation. The Government had not succeeded in either one or the other. The position was a very difficult one; and he ventured to predict that e e long we should have to have another expedition on an even more costly scale.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That his House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution. "
  The House divided:—Ayes, 231; Noes, 203. (Division List, No. 81.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bingham, Lord

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brassey, Albert

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt. Hon Sir H.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Butcher, John George,

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Denny, Colonel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmund

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dimsdale, Rt Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Chapman, Edward

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.

  Bill, Charles

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Mon'mth)

  Ratciiff, R. F.

  Fergusson, Rt Hon. Sir J. (Mancr

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Finch, Rt. Hon, George H.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Riley, S. Forde

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Fison, Frederick William

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Robert

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Flannery, Sit Fortescue

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Col, Charles W. (Evesham)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Samuel, SirHarryS. (Limehouse

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Garfit, William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Smith, RtHnJ. Parker(Lanarks

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

  M'Iver. Sir Lewis(EdinburghW.

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Spear, John Ward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stanley. Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stewart, SirMarkJ. M'Taggart

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maxwell, RtHnSirH E. (Wigt'n)

  Stock, James Henry

  Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

  Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriesshire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gretton, John

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Greville, Hon, Ronald

  Milner, Rt, Hon. Sir FrederiekG.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hain, Edward

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm, Edw. M.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hamilton, Marqof(L'nd'nderry)

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamsto')

  Tuff, Charles

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Turnour, Viscount

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH(Sheffield

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords. N W

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Welby. SirCharlesG. E (Notts.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Myers, William Henry

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hope, J F. (SheffieldBrightside)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Willougliby de Eresby, Lord

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Howard, John(Kent Faversham

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

  Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil

  Percy, Earl

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hunt, Rowland

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Kerr, John

  Purvis, Robert

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Randles, John S.

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rankin, Sir James

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Brigg, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Allen, Charles P.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Burt, Thomas

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Cremer, William Randal

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Caldwell, James

  Crombie, John William

  Bell, Richard

  Cameron, Robert

  Crooks, William

  Blake, Edward

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Boland, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  1012

  1013

  Delany, William

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee),

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Roche, John

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, Charles K.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)/

  Elibank, Master of

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw'sBghs)

  Lundon, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehy, David

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Crae, George

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Kean, John

  Slack, John Bamford

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Morley, Rt Hn. John (Montrose)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Gilhooly, James

  Murphy, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Grant, Corrie

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Tomkinson, James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

  Toulmin, George

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Ure, Alexander

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wallace, Robert

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hayden, John Partick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon, Charles H.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  O'Malley, William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Mara, James

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Partington, Oswald

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Johnson, John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Joicey, Sir James

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wood, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Price, Robert John

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Priestley, Arthur

  Young, Samuel

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rea, Russell

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.)

  Reddy, M.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Mr. J. H. Whitley and Mr

  Labouchere, Henry

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'tb)

  Runciman.

  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [13TH MARCH].
  Resolution reported.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  "That 129, 000 officers, seamen and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, including 20, 211 Royal Marines. "
  Resolution read a second time.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked for some information upon that part of the charge upon the country which was to a certain extent involved in the Order of Council of the 1st January, 1904. He desired to get from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty a clear statement as to the Vote appended to that Order in Council. The note was as follows—
  "That it is to be understood that in any matter of great importance the First Sea Lord

  1015
  is always to be consulted by the other Sea Lords and by the Parliamentary and Civil Lords. "
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid he did see how this Question arose on this Vote, which was the Vote for men.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEadmitted that if he could not move to reduce the number of men at the Admiralty, if he could only move to reduce the number of sea-going men, he would not be in order and he would not pursue the subject.
  MR. EUGENE WASONasked why the officers in the Navy had to retire at the age of sixty years while officers in the Army had not.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that this discussion must be confined to the simple matter of the Vote.
  MR. WHTTLEYsaid he would formally move to reduce the Vote by 100 men in order that the hon. Gentleman opposite might explain how it was that the House was now without the second portion of the Return promised by the hon. Gentleman.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)said the Return was complete and he hoped it would have been in the Vote Office by this time.
  MR. WHITLEYpointed out that if 140 or 160 ships were to be put into the lama class, which was not in being, it must affect the number of men required, and in order that they might have an opportunity of seeing whether the Return was in the Vote Office he would formally move that the Vote be reduced by 100 men if he were in order in so doing.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out'129, 000, ' and insert'128, 900'. "—(Mr. Whitey.)
  Question proposed, "That '129, 000' stand part of the said Resolution. "
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought that in view of what took place in Committee, the House ought to
  1016
  have been supplied before now with the second part of the Return he had asked for in connection with the redistribution of the Fleet. It immediately affected one question concerning the personnel. In the Memorandum of December 6th, the First Lord stated that from year to year the Admiralty had endeavoured to remedy the evil of a deficient personnel by largely adding to it, but that the increase in the number, size, and horsepower of the ships in commission had more than swallowed up the additions, and that consequently an adequate provision for the ships in the Fleet, Reserve had not yet been made. The fact was that manning had fallen behind construction, and one purpose of the discarding of ships had been to make good the deficiency of men. What he asked for, among other things, was the numbers of the crews of the vessels discarded, and of those retained under the charge of a caretaker, so that they might know how many officers and men had been set free by this new policy.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: I can give the hon. Member the figure approximately. It is about 30, 000 for the crews of all the vessels included in the Return. But this does not necessarily represent the number set free by what is referred to as the New Policy.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON,continuing, said he was not responsible, as had been stated in another place, for the fact that sixteen ships appeared in both parts of the Return. He should like to know how many men were set free from the ships that were to be sold, and how many from the ships that were to be placed in the lama class. Unfortunately they could not on this occasion press for information on other subjects, such as the discrepancy in the amounts to be applied to new construction, which ought to have been given on a previous occasion.
  *MR. PRRTYMANexpressed h s regret that the Return was not available to Members of the House. Ho, completed the Return yesterday, and understood it would be issued to-day, but it-was not yet in the Vote Office. But in any case, the only point it would be in order to discuss on the present occasion,

  1017
  was that referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee with regard to the number of the crews. It was unfortunate that in the Return certain ships should appear under two headings. That had arisen from the fact that the headings under which the Return was moved for were not appropriate, and would not have afforded all the information the hon. Member desired. He therefore communicated with the hon. Member, and at his special request the ships in List 1B were included.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONpointed out that 1B was a new kind of enumeration which appeared in the Dockyard Expense Accounts this year for the first time.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid the whole misunderstanding had arisen from his desire to give the hon. Member the fullest possible information. The ships would have been left out of this class as ships not carrying crews and on which no expenditure would be incurred in respect of repairs, but he understood that the hon. Member desired them to be included in the Return.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he did not blame the hon. Gentleman for the misunderstanding, nor did he with to be blamed himself. Speaking at Glasgow the Prime Minister stated that 130 ships would be struck off the Navy List altogether; a day or two before that speech a list of ships appeared in The Times, and what he wanted was a correct list.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid that since the preliminary accounts appeared in The Times certain adjustments had been made, and the Prime Minister distinctly stated that he did not pledge himself to the accuracy of the figures. He could not give the hon. Member detailed information with regard to the crews; he could only say that the total number in respect of all the ships included in the list was altogether 30, 000. It was impossible to say exactly which ships were struck off the combatant list as a result of what was called the New Policy. There had always been the policy of removing
  1018
  from the Navy ships which were out-of date and unfit for effective use, but that naturally led to a considerable waste of money, because it was the duty of the Controller of the Navy to keep in constant readiness for war every ship that might be called upon to fight. There was no half-way house. As might be seen from the Return, considerable expenditure had been incurred in quite recent times upon ships which were shortly afterwards discarded. It had therefore been thought desirable to create an intermediate class, and that was the only point in regard to which there was a new policy. By the creation of that class, it had been rendered possible to keep ships which were not fit for the first fighting line, but which were not so bad that they might not be of use under certain circumstances in case of war. Those ships were to be put aside, no crews would be provided for them or expenditure incurred upon them, and in that way undue waste of money would be avoided He could not give the number of men set free in reference to every ship; he could only state the figure approximately. The Questions asked by hon. Members opposite were perfectly reasonable, and he would be glad to answer them if he could. He would point out, however, that the comparison for which they asked was not between two concrete cases, but between what was to-day and what might have been had this policy not been adopted. To make such a comparison with accuracy was practically impossible, and, as he did not desire to give any inaccurate figures, he hoped hon. Members would be satisfied with the reply he had made and not press for anything more definite.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked was the total of the personnel for all the ships being provided for in this case and how much was attributable to ships sold and ships that were not sold?
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid there was an actual reduction in the number of the personnel of 2, 100. The reduction was partly owing to the new policy, which was not the policy for one year, but it was to be a continuous policy.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid that last year the personnel was increased by 4, 000 and the total personnel amounted to 131, 000. This year there was a reduction shown of 2, 000, making the total 129, 000. The question he wished to put was whether that was altogether due to the new scheme. If so, then it meant that the total reduction in cost, which was shown at £2, 500, 000, exclusive of £1, 000, 000 for the Chilian ships, was really a reduction of £3, 000, 000, because those 2, 000 men who had been cut off the pay list this year would have meant an increase in ordinary circumstances of £500, 000, as only a half year's pay was voted for the increased numbers last year.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, but not this year. It would mean a reduction in the future. Those 2, 100, if they came on pay, would mean that amount of additional expenditure.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid he could not follow the hon. Member's argument. He thought this reticence in itself was suspicious, and having regard to what had happened in reference to the Transvaal loan and other similar transactions it was important that they should criticise fully any financial proposals made by the Government. There were 30, 000 men involved in these proposals, although many would be retained. If there was such a large number of men as that he thought the hon. Member opposite must see that the House was entitled to a little more definite information. Really he thought they ought to get, before this Vote was passed, from the hon. Gentleman some rough estimate of the difference in the cost between the new scheme and what it would have cost the country under the old scheme. The Secretary to the Admiralty told them very clearly that they were relaxing their efforts because they had been working up arrears with regard to repairs and maintenance, and economy had resulted from that. The Admiralty must know what economy had resulted from the new scheme. He could not follow the argument of the hon. Member at all.
  *MR. PRETYMANsaid it was difficult to define what the hon. Member meant by "economy." Where did economy begin and extra expenditure end? These comparisons were almost impossible to arrive at with any degree of accuracy. What he said was not that 30, 000 men were saved, but that the whole of the crews upon Part I. of the Return was 30, 000. He had nothing to conceal, and he was most anxious to give all the information asked for, but really that information did not exist.

  SUPPLY [14TH MARCH].
  Resolution reported.
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6, 672, 000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906. "
  SUPPLY [21ST MARCH].
  Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

  CLASS III.
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12, 000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, King's Proctor, and Director of Public Prosecutions, the Cost of Prosecutions, and other Legal Proceedings. "
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending

  1021
  on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts. "
  3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £860, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland. "
  4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Expenses of the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland. "

  CLASS IV.
  5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9. 000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Expenses connected with the Relief of the National Antarctic Expedition. "

  ClASS V.
  6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £54, 000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, in Aid of the Expenses of the British Protectorate in Somaliland. "
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First Resolution.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid he desired to call attention to the action of the Treasury with regard to the refunding of the costs incurred in the prosecution of the late Mr. Whitaker Wright. When this Vote came up a few days ago the matter was allowed to slide, because Members desired to discuss the case of Adolf Beck. The House would, however, do well to listen to a short account of the action of the Treasury in departing from their promise that the costs of those engaged in getting
  1022
  up this prosecution should be paid. He had the privilege of first bringing this matter before the House on the Address. The Attorney-General on that occasion worked himself up into a state of forensic fury, banged the Table, and made it appear that all sorts of insinuations were made against his honour. No such insinuations were made, but it had to be admitted that the Attorney-General was guilty of an error of judgment. Had it been left to the Attorney-General this criminal would have escaped. It was solely due to Mr. John Flower—a gentleman of the highest honour and well known in the City, who had suffered severely—that justice and the law were vindicated. He thought the Treasury had behaved with great meanness towards Mr. Flower, whose task was made doubly difficult by the debate which took place in the House, in the course of which the Solicitor-General stated that a man could not be prosecuted for issuing a fraudulent balance-sheet, an opinion silently acquiesced in by the Attorney-General.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON (Dublin University): The hon. Member misrepresents me. I said you cannot prosecute a man unless the fraudulent balance-sheet is issued with intent to defraud.
  MR. LAMBERT: The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Will anyone say you can prosecute a man for issuing a false balance-sheet?"
  The Law Officers gave that as their opinion, and that had the effect of deterring the public outside, and it made the task of Mr. Flower and his coadjutors doubly difficult. Mr. Flower, at great cost, performed a great public service in bringing a criminal to justice. Mr. Flower had been the means of vindicating the British law. He did not ask that Mr. Flower should be recouped for any public service he had rendered—although he had rendered a great public service to the commercial community—but that he should be recouped his actual out-of-pocket expenses in the matter. A vouched account had been sent to the Treasury for £518, and he thought the House would be surprised to learn that the Treasury proposed to pay only £18.

  1023
  Of course Mr. Flower, being an honourable man, flung the Treasury cheque into their face. To send him a cheque for £18 was like accusing him of being a rascal as fraudulent as Whitaker Wright. That was quite contrary to the promise which was given to the House by the Home Secretary in 1904, when he said that the Government would repay the costs of the prosecution of Whitaker Wright. The Law Officers refused to prosecute, and, of course, costs were incurred by Mr. Flower in getting up the public subscription which amounted to £2, 000. It was only because that public subscription was got up that the prosecution committee were able to pay into Court the amount ordered by Mr. Justice Buckley. He thought the Secretary of the Treasury would see that but for the incurring of expense for verifying documents and getting transcripts of the company's reports, it would have been impossible for a man so to move the public as to subscribe £2, 000. It was impossible for any man to get up a public subscription for such a purpose without first bringing the public to understand the enormity of the frauds perpetrated and the guilt of the person who had committed them. It was due absolutely and entirely to Mr. Flower's previous expenditure of £518 that the £2, 000 was got together, and if that sum had not been got together Mr. Whitaker Wright would have been loose to-day enjoying his ill-gotten gains. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had behaved with incredible meanness to a man who had performed a very great public service. A rather interesting correspondence took place between Mr. Arnold White and the Attorney-General. Mr. White, believing that the Attorney-General had committed a slight error of judgment, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman's services were well remunerated by the State, thought he might like to subscribe to the fund to recoup Mr. Flower. In a letter dated May 7th, 1904. which Mr. White wrote to the Attorney-General, he pointed out that the Solicitor-General had indicated the opinion in a debate in the House of Commons that a man could not be prosecuted for publishing a false balance-sheet.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: I say the same now.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid Whitaker Wright was prosecuted and convicted. After all was said and done there must be a mistake somewhere. He was not a lawyer, and he had no legal knowledge at all, but here was a case where the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General said there was no case, and through the action of Mr. Flower Mr. Whitaker Wright was brought before a Judge and jury and convicted, and they knew the tragic dénouement. He was sorry that the Attorney-General had not yet become a subscriber to the fund, but after the debate he might become a slight contributor to it. In this matter the Treasury might say that Mr. Flower's expenses were not exactly legal expenses. No doubt they were not, but they were genuinely incurred by him in getting up the subscription. The prosecution committee had to fight enormous influences. Great wealth was most unscrupulously used, and if it had not been that the prosecution committee, even after the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckley, engaged counsel to appear at the trial there might have been a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution committee had only been able to return to the subscribers 16s. 8d. in the £1. That was through the Treasury refusing to allow more.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I was a subscriber and I have not got anything.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid the hon. Baronet knew about this better than he did him self, but the statement he had made was according to his information. It appeared that the hon. Baronet had not got his share of the swag. The Treasury ought to recoup the prosecution committee and Mr. Flower the whole of their out-of-pocket expenses which were incurred honestly and in a bona fide manner. They had not put a single shilling in their own pockets. It had been suggested that Mr. Flower should be recouped out of the prosecution fund, but he was an honourable man and would not listen to that suggestion. The hon. Member moved a reduction of

  1025
  the Vote by £100, as a protest against the niggardly action of the Treasury in this matter.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£12, 000, ' and insert '£11, 900. '"—(Mr. Lambert.)
  Question proposed, "That '£12, 000' stand part of the said Resolution. "
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.)said he regretted that this question had been raised because it involved a certain amount of detail which he had hoped it might not have been necessary to discuss. He did not complain of the way in which the matter had been presented to the House by the hon. Member opposite. The total amount of expenses claimed by Mr. Flower was £582, and, without going through all the details, he might give two or three examples of the charges to show how the Treasury was justified in the course taken. The biggest item was for rent of premises £200. He understood that Mr. Flower occupied premises in Angel Court from June, 1901, to June, 1903, and carried on his stock-broking business there—was in fact doing so at the present time. He was credibly informed that no use whatever was made of those premises, and that on no single occasion did the prosecution committee meet there. He did not think that item could in any way be said to form part of the expense of prosecuting Mr. Whitaker Wright, and he thought that the Treasury were justified in striking that out. There were other smaller items, such as shorthand notes, advertisements, circularising shareholders, etc., nearly all of which were not only prior to the Attorney-General's decision, but also prior to the winding up order of 31st October, 1901. Those were matters, again, which could not, in any shape or form, be considered to be connected with the prosecution. There was a charge for newspaper articles, in July, 1901, and February, 1902. These had been carefully examined by competent advisers, who decided, after investigation, that they had nothing whatever to do with the case. The same was to be said about certain charges for
  1026
  circularising shareholders, and for solicitor's fees which, in the view of his legal advisers, had nothing to do with the prosecution of Whitaker Wright. He hoped that no charge of meanness would be directed against the Treasury, who had acted fairly according to the decision the Government had arrived at, and had handed over the taxed costs and the still further sum which, after most careful consideration, they had decided might properly be attributed to the cost of the prosecution. He regretted to have been compelled to go into these details of a case which every one wished to be closed. The Treasury had taken the broadest and most liberal view they could, and he believed that an impartial observer would say that they had erred rather on the side of liberality than of meanness.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that he knew that his hon. friend had investigated and dealt with this case with a single-minded desire to see justice done if he thought that there might have been a miscarriage of justice. He did not understand that his hon. friend disputed the statements made by the Secretary to the Treasury. He hoped the hon. Member would not much differ from him when he expressed the opinion that some of the items mentioned by the Secretary to the Treasury ought not to have been paid to Mr. Flower, and he hoped would not be paid. Take, for example, apart from the taxed costs, the claims made for private expenses by Mr. Flower in trying to get up the prosecution. For two years he charged the whole rent of his own office where he carried on his own business.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I would not like to say it is the whole rent.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid that Mr. Flower's statement was that he found it would be useless to get up an agitation among themselves, and accordingly he took an office specially for the purpose of attending to this matter; and for two years he had used this office almost exclusively for the purpose of the London and Globe affairs. The rent came to £200. Mr. Flower was then a bankrupt, through the collapse of the London and Globe

  1027
  Company, and therefore he could not engage in stockbroking business.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he had never heard that any gentleman who asked for the costs of a prosecution should include in these the rent of an office for two years. It seemed to him absurd and incredible that a man should take an office at a rent of £200 a year in order to circularise shareholders. He might be allowed to say a word or two about this case although he did not want to re-open the whole matter. In former times there used to be constant complaints made against the Attorney-General of the day for pressing prosecutions against private persons; but for a hundred years no such case of harshness or cruelty in the matter of prosecutions against private parties had been levelled against the Attorney-General or the Law Officers of the Crown. The institution of criminal proceedings was a most serious and grave matter, and if it had to be done, it ought to be done without pressure from persons who knew nothing of the affair. He did not think the House of Commons, except in very extreme cases, ought ever to be appealed to to put pressure on the Attorney-General to institute such proceedings. He thought that it was a most dangerous thing that hon. Gentlemen who had not taken the smallest trouble to ascertain the facts should endeavour to bring pressure on the Law Officers in such a matter. He said that because it was the first occasion on which such pressure had been exercised, and he would certainly oppose it.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid, as one who supported the hon. Gentleman opposite when he brought forward his Motion for the prosecution of Mr. Whitaker Wright, he might be allowed to add a new remarks. He disagreed with the decision of the Attorney-General in the matter, but so arfrom that decision having acted badly he thought, on the contrary, that it had induced many people to subscribe. For his own part, it had induced him to subscribe because, rightly or wrongly, he thought there had been a miscarriage of justice. He quite agreed that no pressure should be put on the Law Officers of the Crown in such cases;
  1028
  but this was a very exceptional case. Nine people out of ten in the City knew all about it and understood it. It was one of the largest and most prominent cases that there had been for years; and was the exception which proved the rule. He did not think, however, that Mr. Flower was injured by the action which was adopted by the Law Officers, and did not consider that Mr. Flower could expect that the Treasury should pay more than the actual cost of the action and a sufficient sum for what was known as costs between solicitor and client. That was all that could be expected. He himself subscribed under the impression that he would not receive anything back in any event. The right hon. Gentleman stated that Mr. Flower was a bankrupt. He was no longer a member of the Stock Exchange; but he was carrying on the business of an outside broker, which he still continued. He agreed that Mr. Flower had succeeded in performing a great public service; it was true that he had lost a great deal of money; but it was not a very wise proceeding to enter into large transactions with Mr. Whitaker Wright with the knowledge that he was incurring a very considerable risk. On the whole he thought that the Government had done the right thing.
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, as one who supported the hon. Gentleman opposite when he originally brought his Motion before the House, he felt bound to express the same views now, but he concurred with the Ex-Attorney-General that no undue pressure ought to be put on the House to institute prosecutions. He also agreed with the late Attorney-General, who stated that the case was an extremely difficult one. But it was the extreme and exceptional case, and one involving the gravest doubt as to whether a prosecution would succeed or not. Judges differed, and the Law Officers were doubtful. There was, of course, no question regarding the bona fides of the Law Officers. Others, however, adopted a different view from theirs, and felt on public grounds that in order to prevent similar gigantic frauds in the future here should at least be a magisterial investigation, and if there were a committal

  1029
  that the trial should proceed. What happened? A man with comparatively little means took all the risk of vindicating the public interest, and deterring as far as possible the recurrence of frauds which had victimised a large number of ignorant and simple people. The risk was great; but the prosecution was justified by the result. The case being extremely exceptional it was right that the treatment of it now should be fairly liberal, especially in connection with the persons who had taken such a large responsibility in the interests of public and commercial morality. It was essentially a case for reasonable consideration and liberal treatment. When he had heard it stated that Mr. Flower had used his own office for the purposes of the prosecution, he thought that his claim in that connection was quite baseless. But it was entirely different when it was shown that a separate office had been necessarily engaged for the purposes of the prosecution. In a prosecution of this kind the documents were voluminous, and conferences were almost innumerable, and a £100 a year for two years for an office in the City was not unreasonable. If Mr. Flower used his own office it would be inconvenient to him, and would also produce an impression of personal interest and advertisement. But when a man took the necessary steps and accepted responsibility, and had succeeded in rendering a great public service, and had shown that people, and especially the poor, could not be plundered with impunity by men who had not the courage of the highwayman, he was entitled to reasonable and proper treatment. He would ask the Treasury not to deal meanly with this matter and not simply to repay the merely taxed costs. He hoped the Government would reconsider the question from a higher and wider and more public stand-point.
  MR. J. F. HOPEexpressed the opinion that this discussion should not come to an end without some further explanation from the Law Officers of the Crown of their action in the matter. Those who brought this case forward recently had expressed a desire to bury and get rid of a deplorable transaction which they had no wish to
  1030
  revive. They had chosen, he thought, a strange way of attaining their desire, but the case having been raised the whole matter ought to be thoroughly cleared up and some explanation given to the public of the action of the Law Officers of the Crown. He said this in no spirit of hostility to the hon. and learned Gentlemen, nor did he complain of the extent to which they were remunerated, as in his opinion it was not excessive. Two years previously, when this question was first raised, there was considerable feeling on the part of the public that the Law Officers of the Crown had been neglectful of their duty in this respect. Feeling ran so high that the Government was at one time in some jeopardy when the debate on the Address took place. At that time the Solicitor-General said that in the present state of the law it was impossible to institute a prosecution, and that it must be made the subject of future legislation. It afterwards transpired that a prosecution could and did lie—and that prosecution was carried to a successful issue without any need for extra legislation. The point insisted upon by the hon. Member for Islington on the last occasion should be borne in mind, namely, that the object of the Government was not to obtain convictions but to obtain the truth. It seemed to him that there was a fear among the officials of the Treasury lest a prosecution when undertaken should be unsuccessful and bring discredit to the Department, but he thought wherever there appeared to be a prima facie case it should be probed to the bottom in a Criminal Court, and if the prosecution failed blame should attach to no one. The officials of the Treasury seemed to be falling into the spirit of French law in this respect. The spirit of French law as understood in this country was a spirit of competition in the endeavour to secure the greatest number of convictions. He hoped any such spirit as that would be entirely purged from the office of the Public Prosecutor. A good deal had been said as to the object of the private individuals who instituted this prosecution which in his opinion was very wide of the mark, and he ventured to think that those expenses which had been incurred by them which they could not recover by any other means ought to be repaid them.

  1031
  At the same time it was a curious way to vindicate their rights to move a reduction, which Motion, if it were successful, would deprive these people of some modicum of the amount they ought to obtain. He should vote against the reduction.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he was loth to occupy the time of the House in again discussing this matter. He did not very much mind the attacks made upon himself because, so far as he was concerned, he was perfectly conscious that the words he had uttered in a previous debate were words well considered and honestly stated in the House and words to which he still adhered. One matter which he had stated had been, over and over again, under a misapprehension, quoted against him as if he had acted erroneously in the advice he gave to the House. He had asked what evidence was sufficient for the purpose of instituting a prosecution. Suppose it was admitted that a balance-sheet was fraudulent, was that sufficient evidence on which to institute a prosecution. In so doing he was quoting almost the very words of Chief Justice Cockburn in a very important case, and the whole meaning of what he said was that they must be able to show that particular intentions of defrauding and deceiving, which were mentioned in the Act of Parliament, existed before they could bring the person against whom the charges were alleged within the statute. That was exactly what Lord Chief Justice Cockburn pointed out in the famous case already referred to by the Attorney-General, and he did not believe that any lawyer would dispute what he had put forward as necessary ingredients of a prosecution. When the matter was before them—and it was under discussion not for a few minutes or hours, but for days, between the Attorney-General, himself, and other counsel engaged in the case—they were of opinion that the materials submitted to them did not show the particular intent which it was necessary to prove before it could come within the statute. They might have been right or wrong in regard to that. The particular matter in reference to which he had been over and over again attacked, was not a question of
  1032
  fact, but that he gave wrong advice on the point of law. Whether the Law Officers were right or wrong in their judgment, it was certainly not from inadvertence, because it was a case in which from day to day they were bound to give the utmost consideration to the materials from time to time placed before them. But nothing rendered more difficult the discharge of the duty the Law Officers had to perform than that, at the time they were discussing a matter of vital importance to an individual fellow-subject against whom there was an outcry at the moment, there should be raised another outcry for the purpose of urging the Law Officers to take a particular course.
  He had risen not so much in consequence of the attack upon himself, as he had already explained his position, but to protest against the observation of an hon. Member who had just spoken that the duty of the Law Officers was to set investigations on foot. Were they, because there was an outcry or a case suggested by a layman against an individual, to set an investigation on foot unless they believed there was a prima facie case against the person accused? Certainly not. That was no part of their duty. If they accepted the principle that the country ought to be satisfied by an investigation, they might, in the case of an innocent man against whom a false or erroneous case had been set up in the minds of the public, by a criminal process put him in the dock, while all the time there was really no case whatever in the legal sense against him. That was exactly what the legal officers ought to guard against. Whatever might be the outcry or whatever outsiders might think of the guilt or innocence of the individual, the Law Officers were bound, whether it was popular or unpopular, whether their decision was satisfactory or unsatisfactory, to exercise their judgment and discretion as to whether a prima facie case had been laid before them. If exercising their judgment with the best of their ability, standing between the subject and his accusers, they came to a wrong conclusion, all he could say as a Law Officer was that he would rather act on his opinion, even if that opinion were wrong, whore the results might be such as they were in the case of Whitaker Wright, and know that he had

  1033
  acted upon his own judgment, than give way for a moment to popular demand or any other exigency, and have it upon his conscience that he had not acted upon a judgment which he himself had formed. That was the sole duty of the Law Officers, and certainly so long as he had the honour to hold his position, even if he were accused afterwards of coming to an erroneous decision, and held up to ridicule within the House of Commons for legal propositions for which at all events he had the high sanction of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, he would adopt the course he had followed in the past. Nobody could avoid being accused of making mistakes, but who was to judge whether mistakes were really made in these difficult questions he did not know. At all events he was certain of this—that he would best discharge the duties cast upon him by acting upon his own judgment after mature consideration of the facts that were laid before him.
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that he had never suggested or thought of suggesting that in the absence of a prima facie case there ought to be even a magisterial investigation.
  MR. J. F. HOPEassociated himself with the remarks of the hon. Member for South Islington.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLreminded the House that on a former occasion the Solicitor-General declared that he never apologised, even for a mistake.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: I did not say that I never apologised. If I were rude to the hon. Member I would apologise. What I said was that I had nothing to apologise for in this case.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid there was a mistake at any rate for which he might apologise, because on a former occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman used these words—
  "It is said that Whitaker Wright published a false balance-sheet. I believe he did. I think it is admitted that this was done. But will any one get up and Bay that a man can
  1034
  be prosecuted because he published a false balance-sheet?"
  Every Member of the House would get up and say it now, and they were justified in saying so by Mr. Justice Buckley and the result of the Whitaker Wright trial. On that occasion, to escape defeat, the Prime Minister promised that the law should be immediately amended, but the pledge had never been carried out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman owed an apology to those Members who pointed out the section in the Criminal Law Amendment Act under which Whitaker Wright was prosecuted to conviction, and under the authority of which Mr. Justice Buckley allowed the prosecution to issue. At Question-time to-day the Attorney-General declared there was full opportunity of discussing this case in the debate on the Address in 1904. This was a matter to which the House should give its attention. In 1903 an Amendment to the Address with reference to the non-prosecution of Whitaker Wright was actually proposed and discussed, and the Government escaped defeat by giving a pledge to amend the law which had never been fulfilled. Such pledges seemed to be an easy way with the present Government of escaping out of difficulties.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: A measure was introduced on the lines indicated, and it was blocked from the hon. Member's side of the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the Government could have passed it in the same way as the Licensing Bill, but they did not want to pass it. He was really rejoiced at the sweet reasonableness of the constitutional doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman that he would not prosecute if there was any legal fault in the matter, and the prosecution must be a matter of certainty. The righ hon. Gentleman was, of course, never in the Coercion Courts in Ireland in his life. Why there had never been such a conversion since the time of St. Paul. A mistake was made by the Law Officers of the Crown which ought not to have been made by officials who received between them £75, 000 a year. There was, in his opinion, a suspicious element

  1035
  in this Whitaker Wright case, and he would do his best to prevent in England the methods of prosecution which prevailed in Ireland.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 247;Noes, 158. (Division List No. 82.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Leveson-Gower, Frederic k N. S.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Arrol, Sir William

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

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir …

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale),

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Fitzroy, Hn. E. Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Iver. Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Garfit, William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Mawell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n>

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Bill, Charles

  Gordon. Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bingham, Lord

  Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Milner, Rt Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Mitchell, Ed. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Bond, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gretton, John

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose),

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middl'sx)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Brassey, Albert

  Hain, Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bull, William James

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry))

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

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

  Myers, William Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Helder, Augustus

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Cayzer, Sir Chas. William

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Chapman, Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Percy, Earl

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

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

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Purvis, Robert

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Randles, John S.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rasch. Sir Frederic Carne

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cubitt, Hn. Henry

  Kerr, John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Keswick, William

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Davenport, William Bromley

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Denny, Colonel

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks. N. R.)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants Fareham

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Saekville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Ed. M.

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

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

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Tuff, Charles

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Smith, Rt Hn. J. Parker (Lanarks

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Spear, John Ward

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Stock, James Henry

  Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund. Lyne)

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N(

  Allen, Charles P.

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Dowd, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydv'I

  O'Mara, James

  Bell, Richard

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Benn, John Williams

  Harrington, Timothy

  Partington, Oswald

  Blake, Edward

  Harwood, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Boland, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Priestley, Arthur

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rea, Russell

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reddy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Burns, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th

  Burt, Thomas

  Johnson, John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Roche, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Runciman, Walter

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sheehy, David

  Crombie, John William

  Lament, Norman

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crooks, William

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Delany, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

  Levy, Maurice

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sullivan, Donal

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duffy, William J.

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kean, John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Ellice, Capt E. C. (SAndrw'sBghs

  Mooney, John J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Murphy, John

  Toulmin, George

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fenwick, Charles

  Newnes, Sir George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North.

  1038

  1039

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wood, James

  Lambert and Mr. Soares.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Young, Samuel

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, Further Consideration of the Resolution stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.
  Further Consideration of Second Resolution deferred till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [21sT MARCH] REPORT.
  Order read, for Further Consideration of First Resolution, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12, 000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, King's Proctor, and Director of Public Prosecutions, the Cost of Prosecutions, and other Legal Proceedings. "
  Resolution further considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution. "
  *MR. CRIPPSexpressed a desire to call attention to what, to his mind, was a very important consideration involved in the Report of the Committee which investigated the Adolf Beck case. He did not propose to deal with the question of remuneration so far as Adolf Beck was concerned, because there were much wider considerations which affected the administration of the criminal law in this country. The Committee found that there had been a deplorable failure of justice. It was suggested by a late Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Fife, that this deplorable failure of justice ad only arisen under exceptional conditions which were not likely to recur, but which did occur in the case of Adolf Beck. He was not satisfied
  1040
  with that. Speaking from his experience as a deputy chairman of quarter sessions, he was not satisfied that in all the criminal cases he had tried a just decision had been given. There were cases in our criminal jurisdiction where the conviction was not satisfactory and where the decision of the Judge ought to be reviewed by another Court. Not only was there a deplorable failure of justice in this case but—and he entirely agreed with the Committee, and differed from the right hon. Member for Fife and the present Home Secretary in that respect—there was a deplorable failure on the part of the Home Office to perform what was their duty at the present time under the existing system of the administration of criminal law. He agreed that the Home Office was not a Court for the review of criminal procedure on questions of fact. If questions of fact were to be reconsidered they must be reconsidered before a judicial body, and ought to be so considered and not relegated to a mere administrative body which had no machinery for retrial. He agreed with all that was found in the Report of the Committee—whose recommendations would be carried out in a Bill which was being introduced in another place—that no blame was to be attached either to the police or to the Public Prosecutor, and that the failure arose in the first instance in the proceedings before the Judge, and in the second, in the failure of the Home Office to take the necessary steps when certain information came to their hand to put right, not only what was a deplorable failure of justice, but which ought to have been recognised by them as a great mistake when the papers were put before them.
  So far as the trial was concerned, he thought the matter was put right by the recommendations of the Committee. The case was put by them as one of mistaken identity, and if the learned Judge had admitted certain evidence, which he did not admit, the case would have not proceeded further. In his opinion, however, the Report of the Committee did not go far enough. It did go to the

  1041
  extent that if a similar case arose there would be an opportunity of bringing it before the Court when it sat as a Crown Court to consider points of law in criminal cases. The Judges had assented in recent years more readily than in olden times to state a case on disputed law, in order that there might be authoritative decisions. There could be no greater injustice than that there should be a risk that a man might be convicted owing to a mistake on the part of the presiding Judge. He did not wish to make a personal attack on any one, but it was obvious that there was plenty of room for a mistake to take place, and they ought to take every security that if such a mistake was made the person charged did not suffer from it.
  A more important point in the Committee's Report was with regard to the conduct of the Home Office. He had no desire to cast aspersions on permanent officials who could not defend themselves in the House, but he did find fault with the system which allowed such a remarkable failure of justice to take place, when it ought to have been put right in the earlier stages of the proceedings, and the irredeemable wrong which had been done to Adolf Beck prevented. After the trial, evidence came to the Home Office to show that Beck could not be the same person as the criminal Smith, who had been tried and convicted on a former occasion, and the House must remember that both at the, trial and in the conviction in Beck's case much turned on the assumption that Smith and Beck were one and the same person. The Home Office had in their hands what appeared to him to be irrefutable evidence of the non-identity of Smith and Beck. He had seen the two documents which were said to be identical, but, from his point of view, it was really impossible to say that they were identical when once closely examined. That, also, was the view of the Committee. In addition to that, there were the marks of identification which could not be gainsaid; and owing to the nationality of Smith it was utterly impossible that Smith and Beck could be the same person. Therefore, the Home Office had within their own archives irrefutable evidence that a main point on which the conviction was founded did not exist in fact.
  1042
  Under those circumstances, what was the duty of the Home Office? He did not say for a moment that the Home Office ought to be looked upon as a Court of criminal review. Its duty was, if subsequent evidence came to their notice that a particular conviction had been wrongly brought about, and that the conditions on which that conviction was based did not exist in fact, to see that the criminal was pardoned and released and not left in prison for a long time and under the conditions in which Beck was left. He would go a step further. The Home Office gave it in evidence that they wrote to the presiding Judge, Sir Forrest Fulton, the Recorder of London; but it was quite clear that, in that communication to the Judge, they did not bring to his mind that one of the conditions under which Beck was convicted was false in fact. It was for that reason that the Judge wrote back that he was satisfied that the conviction was right. In exercising the prerogative of pardon the Home Office should bring the true bearings of the facts within their knowledge to the notice of the Judge. The Committee did not go one iota too far in their strictures upon the Home Office. They pointed out that the Home Office had failed, with a knowledge of all the facts, to take such steps as would have allowed immediate reparation to be done to Beck. He would not attempt to trace out where the fault lay; but the facts clearly showed that, as regarded the extremely important duty of the exercise of the prerogative of pardon, the Home Office was not sufficiently well-manned. Full notice and knowledge of the facts were brought to the Home Office, and apparently they went as far as the permanent Undersecretary. He agreed with what was said by a late Home Secretary that in a serious matter of this kind the facts should be brought to the notice of the Secretary of State himself; but in the Beck case nothing of the kind was done. The inference which the Committee drew was that, looking to the very important function which ought to be discharged by the Home Office in exercising the prerogative of pardon, the Home Office was inadequately manned. If that were so in the Beck case, it aroused suspicions in reference to other cases less clear. He had

  1043
  the strongest view that every criminal convicted under whatever condition had a right to have his case investigate by the Home Office—not as a court of criminal review, but so fully investigate as to give an effective result in order to remedy what the Committee in the Beck case called a "deplorable failure of justice. "Nobody with a knowledge of criminal prosecution would be satisfied that the Home Office had sufficient effective machinery for the investigation of such cases, and it was a duty worthy of this House to provide precautions, so far as was humanly possible, to protect an innocent man from conviction. What was borne in upon him was that, unless the Home Office were sufficiently manned so as to give effective consideration, no only to such extreme cases as Beck's, but to ordinary cases, our whole system of criminal jurisdiction in this country could not be regarded as satisfactory.
  He admitted that all questions of criminal appeal were full of difficulty; but the difficulty ought to be faced. He thought they were very much indebted to the labours of the Committee which considered the Beck case. It was no small matter to ask one of the hardest worked Judges in this country to curtail his holidays in order to deal with a complicated question of this kind. Anyone who had read the Report carefully could see that it was not only a masterly analysis of the facts, but that this great Judge brought his experience to bear on the only practical remedy apart from a general revision of the judicial system of the country. He hoped this case would not be forgotten in one respect, He hoped the House would not lose sight of the fact that injustice of this kind could occur; or believe that this was an isolated case. He himself did not believe it was an isolated case; and he hoped the result would be that the Home Office system would be made more effective and that means would be provided by which criminal trials could be reviewed in order to render impossible, as far as human ingenuity could provide, such an act of injustice.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he agreed with his hon. and learned friend that such an act of injustice as had occurred should, if at all
  1044
  possible, be not allowed to recur. Undoubtedly this was not an isolated case. It, however, appeared to be assumed that Mr. Beck was convicted as Smith, who had been found guilty of similar crimes in 1877; and it was suggested by his hon. and learned friend that when it was discovered that Mr. Beck was not Smith, the Home Office was to blame for not taking action. He did not agree. One of the difficulties of the case was that Smith was kept out of the trial altogether. That was a very important point in our criminal law. It was a rule which existed in England, and which did not exist elsewhere, that it was no reason to suppose because A. B. committed a certain crime previously that therefore he had committed a similar crime now being tried. That was not admitted in English law. It was admitted in foreign countries. In France, for instance, there was always the presumption if A. B. had been convicted of a certain crime and was being tried for a similar crime that he was guilty. The Judge in this case refused to accept any proof as to the crimes committed in 1877. If that were understood, he did not see how the Home Office could have acted otherwise than it did. He, however, could not understand why the Home Office labelled Mr. Beck as Smith, and why they should assume that a man who had been tried without any reference to Smith was the person who had committed similar crimes in 1877. The evidence was erroneous, of course, but undoubtedly strong. There was evidence as regarded handwriting; but in his magisterial experience he never allowed handwriting to be taken into account. It was the most unsatisfactory form of evidence possible. There was, however, other evidence. All the women swore to the identity of this particular man; other witnesses were doubtful, and no evidence was offered that he was not the man. There was no alibi. There was nothing to guide the unfortunate jury—to every member of which he believed the case must have caused much pain and trouble for having convicted this man. He was afraid that they could not prevent things of this kind occurring occasionally; and he did not believe that even a Court of Criminal Appeal would be able to prevent them. The Court of Criminal

  1045
  Appeal would have had before it the same evidence, and the same verdict which had been returned, and on that evidence he did not sea how any other verdict could be returned. Personally he agreed with the Committee that it was not desirable that there should be a Court of Criminal Appeal. In the first place, there would have to be a limited time during which appeals could be made, and consequently only the same evidence would be available. Secondly; there would always be a difficulty in getting witnesses for the prisoner to come forward, from the fact that he had been previously convicted; and thirdly, as the power to revise sentences must almost necessarily include the power to increase them, there would be the risk of the prisoner's sentence being increased. He doubted whether the power to take cases up to the Court of Crown Cases Reserved would have any material effect in preventing miscarriages of justice. But what he wished to point out was that the original trial was the simple issue of whether Mr. Beck was the person who did certain acts on certain days, and the mere fact that he was not the man who committed other crimes of a similar nature was not such a discovery as necessarily to put everybody upon inquiry as to whether he did commit the crimes for which he was sentenced. For these reasons it appeared to him that there was no special blame to be attached to the Home Office.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid it appeared from the remarks of hon. Gentlemen of exceptional experience in these matters that a great many more miscarriages of justice occurred than the public usually supposed. If that were so, the public did not hear either of the cases of mitigation of sentences or reversal of convictions, and that was a singular testimony to the fact that the existing system did admit of ultimate justice being done where mistakes unhappily occurred. In this particular case he did not think there was any reason to indulge in excessive alarm or apprehension as to the likelihood of the repetition of so unfortunate a mistake. There had not been proved any vindictive action on
  1046
  the part of the police, nor had there been shown that confusion which sometimes existed elsewhere between inquisitorial or executive functions and judicial functions. There had been no looking for promotion or increase of emolument based on the number of convictions obtained. That was one of the dangers which had to be guarded against in all criminal systems, and it was satisfactory that it had not been found in practice to obtain. A defect which had been shown to exist was the absence of a system of interchangeability of knowledge or records. The Prisons Department appeared to have had knowledge which the police had not and possibly both were aware of facts of which the Home Office was ignorant. The Committee had most properly drawn attention to that point, and doubtless some arrangement would be made to remedy the defect in future.
  But the most important matter of all was the function of the Home Office in the matter. Here, he thought, was the principal danger they had to guard against. It appeared that a gentleman at the Home Office wrote to the Judge asking whether his mind had been changed by the emergence of particular facts, and when the Judge replied that he could not change his mind on a mere supposition, he did not write back to say it was not a supposition but an actual fact proved by materials in the possession of the Home Office. There was a danger in that indifference. He associated himself with all that was said in the last debate with regard to the Home Office staff. The Home Office was manned by gentlemen of exceptional ability, and in this case there was no bad influence at work except the tendency which existed in all public offices to regard in too high a degree the sanctity of the judiciary. There seemed to be the impression that a Judge must not be troubled. Much as the judiciary of this country was admired, it had to be remembered that they treated the Executive with scant respect when the Executive came under review before them; and that whenever they got the opportunity they treated the legislative body with no respect whatever. Judges existed to be troubled if and when there was

  1047
  any suspicion that a miscarriage of justice had taken place, and they should be troubled not once or twice, but a dozen times, if necessary. If that had been done in this case the mistake would probably have been rectified.
  How were such mistakes to be prevented in future? The Committee suggested that something more in the way of legal knowledge was necessary. Legal knowledge alone was not sufficient; knowledge of the laws of evidence was not sufficient. What was wanted was practical experience in the application of the law in actual cases. He was once told—he did not know whether it was still the case—that candidates for the Indian Civil Service, who, if successful, had to discharge duties partly administrative and partly judicial, had, as part of their examination and qualification, to attend at British Courts of Justice and take notes of a certain number of defended cases, and the notes so taken were given in as part of the test of their efficiency. He thought that in that practice there was the germ of the kind of preparation which might be brought in for some portions of the Civil Service. It was fallacious to suppose that the same tests were equally appropriate to all branches of the service. Whereas in the Treasury men of financial ability were required, in the Home Office those qualities which fitted a man, not only for administrative, but also for judicial duties were necessary. He believed that something of that kind was required. Nobody regretted more than I he did the lamentable miscarriage of justice that took place in this case, but he did not think there was any occasion for panic.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,)said he thought that his hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford had been a little bit harsh in dealing with some of the officials of the Home Office. His hon. and learned friend was of opinion that the discovery that Smith was a Jew, and that Beck was not, should have convinced them, not only that Smith and Beck were different persons, but that Beck was innocent. He had also thrown a great
  1048
  deal of cold water upon the value of handwriting evidence and the evidence of handwriting experts. It appeared to him that that was the key to the position. The moment it was brought to the attention of the Home Office that there was a probability that Beck and Smith were not the same persons, that Smith was a Jew and that Beck was not, they at once made inquiries and found that that was the fact. It was discovered that Beck and Smith were not the same person; but, of course, they had then to go back upon the handwriting, and the whole case rested upon the similarity of the handwriting. It was said that if the writer of the letter in 1877 was the same as the writer in 1896, and if Beck could not have been in that particular country at that time because he was in Peru, therefore Beck could not have been the person who committed the crime. Therefore, his hon. and learned friend brought them back to the handwriting. The Committee said, "Look at these documents; any man in the street could see that they were in the same handwriting." It was notorious to hon. Members and to his hon. and learned friend that there was nothing more misleading than expert evidence in regard to handwriting. He did not think there was any blame whatever to be attached to those who preferred to accept the direct evidence of ten witnesses—he believed there were more witnesses willing to come forward and give similar evidence—who came into the witness box and said, "That is the man who committed the fraud. "No doubt his hon. and learned friend himself would admit that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 he would prefer the direct identification of ten witnesses to any amount of documentary evidence as to the similarity of handwriting. Perhaps he might be allowed to look back at the history of the case. In 1877 these frauds began. How was Smith convicted? Exactly as Beck was convicted in 1896. He was convicted on the same documents and the same direct evidence and handwriting; and who doubted that Smith was guilty? Smith admitted himself that in 1877 he was guilty, although he did not admit that he was guilty in 1896.
  MR. MARKHAM: Does the hon. Gentleman know that the closure falls at ten o'clock, and that not a word has been said on this side of the House?
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he had no desire to stand in the way of hon. Members opposite, but he wished to point out that the Judge, in his letter, said that it did not matter whether Beck and Smith were the same person or different persons, and that he was satisfied on the evidence that came before him that Beck was the guilty person. In the circumstances he thought that less than justice had been done to the officials of the Home Office. It was extremely hard to pass censure upon a board of officials who had not had an opportunity of being heard. Let him add that he did not think there existed a more zealous, painstaking—
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, yes. Agreed, agreed.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he thought the hon. Member for South Donegal was a little ungracious in his interruptions. These officials had no opportunity of being heard before the Committee, and it was very hard on them that they should be so severely censured. To censure these officials in such a harsh manner was a very serious matter indeed. He felt that extremely keenly, and the generous speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife was of quite a different tone to the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He would not stand any longer in the way of hon. Members opposite. What they all desired was that similar cases should not be liable to occur in future. All who heard the statement made the other night by the Secretary of State for the Home Department knew that he was prepared to meet every one of the points raised by the Committee, and the result of that must be that such cases would not be likely to occur in future.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that in the case of Mr. Beck there had been an awful and scandalous miscarriage of justice, and he wished the hon. Member for the Hallam Division
  1050
  had abstained from lecturing the House in the manner he had done as to the way in which business was conducted at the Home Office. The documents were never brought to the knowledge of the late Viscount Ridley, the then Home Secretary. Everything was discussed and dealt with by the subordinate officials, who ought to have brought the case to the knowledge of the responsible Minister. The hon. Member for the Hallam Division was Under-Secretary when Viscount Llandaff was Home Secretary, and their tenure of office was characterised by a great miscarriage of justice in the case of Mrs. Maybrick. She ought to have been hanged or let go free. It had been stated again and again that the Beck case was unparalleled, but he was not at all satisfied that there were not cases of a similar nature from time to time. The late Sir William Harcourt, in 1883, when Home Secretary, brought forward a Bill with the object of establishing a Criminal Appeal Court. Lord James of Hereford stated that it was within his knowledge that a man had been twice convicted of offences of which he was innocent. Cases where innocent persons were convicted were of frequent occurrence. He could not help contrasting the generosity with which Mr. Beck had been treated in the matter of compensation with the small and utterly inadequate payments made to people in Ireland who had been convicted on the evidence of perjurers connected with the police and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. The grievance of those who had suffered wrongful imprisonment in Ireland was aggravated in some cases by the fact that the perjurers who had brought about the miscarriage of justice received what were called compassionate payments in order that the police force might be relieved of them
  MR. LOUGHsaid that this discussion afforded a deplorable illustration of the effect of the closure. It was a great pity that instead of walking through the division lobbies they could not go on a little longer with the discussion of this matter. His complaint was that the Home Secretary had not made the slightest attempt to satisfy

  1051
  public opinion in regard to this gross miscarriage of justice. In the two debates which had taken place on the subject compliments had been paid to the police and the Home Office, as though, in the conduct of these Departments, everything was for the best in the best of all possible worlds. The Report of the Committee of Inquiry contained the following—
  "And though it is possibly beyond out province to suggest it, may not the time have come for abolishing the anomaly of pardoning a man who never ought to have been convicted, and a simpler remedy adopted of quashing the conviction on motion by the Attorney -General and entering an acquittal as of Record?"
  Why did not the right hon. Gentleman do something to carry out that recommendation?
  The system of identification, as illustrated by what occurred in this case, showed that changes were required in order to guard against the danger of injustice being done to innocent persons when arrested on suspicion. The representatives of the Home Office had not given the slightest assurance that such a grave miscarriage of justice would be avoided in future.
  And, it being Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th March, put that Question.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 83.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Gretton, John

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Halsey. Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hare, Thomas Le gh

  Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Balcarres, Lord

  Denny, Colonel

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

  Balfour, RtHn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Helder, Augustus

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Dyke, Rt Hn Sir Wm. Hart

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Bigwood, James

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Bill, Charles

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Hozier, Hn. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Bingham, Lord

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mancr)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bond, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

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

  Kennaway, Rt Hn Sir John H

  Bowles, Lt-Col. H. F. (Middles'x)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Brassey, Albert

  Fison, Frederick William

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Kerr, John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Keswick, William

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Butcher, John George

  Forster, Henry William

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Carson, Rt. Hon Sir Edw. H.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Gardner, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Garfit, William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

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

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks, NR

  Chapman, Edward

  Gordon, Hn. J. E(Elgin&Nairn

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants Fareham

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage

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

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Callings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Long, RtHn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Lowe, Francis William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stock, James Henry

  Lowther, C. (Climb., Eskdale)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Purvis, Robert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thornton, Percy M.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W.)

  Randles, John S.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tuff, Charles

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

  Turnour, Viscount

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Maxwell, RtHn Sir H. E(Wigton)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Maxwell, W. JH. (Dumfriesshire)

  Renshaw, Sir Charle Bine

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles

  Wortley, Rt. Hn C. B. Stuart

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Myers, William Henry

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Wylie, Alexander

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Smith, HC(North'm b. Tyneside)

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —Sir

  Pemberton. John S. G.

  Spear, John Ward

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Hon, A. (Ormskirk)

  and Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Allen, Charles P.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Ambrose, Robert

  Delany, William

  Harwood, George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Herme, Norval Watson

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Bell, Richard

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Benn, John Williams

  Duffy, William J.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Blake, Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Boland, John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Ellice, CaptEC. (S Andrw'sBghs)

  Johnson, John

  Brigg, John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Joicey, Sir James

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Jones Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Burns, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Burt, Thomas

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Field, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Caldwell, James

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

  Kitson, Sir James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Labouchere, Henry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lambert, George

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Langley, Batty

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gilhooly, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Aeecrington)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Levy, Maurice

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lloyd-George, David

  Crombie, John William

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  Lundon, W,

  Crooks, William

  Hammond, John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  1054

  1055

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Crae, George

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  M'Kean, John

  Priestley, Arthur

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

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rea, Russell

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Toulmin, George

  Mitchell, Ed. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Reddy, M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Ure, Alexander

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th

  Wallace, Robert

  Moss, Samuel

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Murphy, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roche, John

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Norman, Henry

  Runeiman, Walter

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Russell, T. W.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

  Sheehy, David

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wills, Arthur Walters(N Dorset

  O'Dowd, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  O'Malley, William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  O'Mara, James

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wood, James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Spencer, RtHn. C. R. (Northants)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd)

  Partington, Oswald

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Young, Samuel

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Yoxall, James Henry

  pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sullivan, Donal

  perks, Robert William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR TNE NOES. —Mr. Lough and Mr. Markham.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order o the House of the 16th March, then put forthwith the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in all the remaining Resolutions reported
  in respect of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates. "
  The House divided:—Ayes, 251; Noes, 198. (Division List No. 84.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brassey, Albert

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Denny, Colonel

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bull, William James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Arrol, Sir William

  Butcher, John George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon John

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bagot, Capt. JoscelineFitzRoy

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dyke. Rt Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Baird. John George Alexander

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chapman, Edward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

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

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Balfour, RtHn Gerald W(Leeds)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Fergusson. Rt. Hn Sir J(Manc'r

  Balfour, Kenneth R (Christch.

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finlay, SirR. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Beach, RtHnSir Michael Hicks

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  FitzGerald. Sir Robert Penrose-

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward. Algernon

  Bigwood, James

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bill, Charles

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bingham, Lord

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Forster, Henry William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bond, Edward

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Garfit, William

  Bowles, Lt-Col H. F. (Middlesex)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Long, RtHn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Gretton, John

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Greville, Hn. Ronald

  M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh W)

  Sandys, Lieut-Col. T. Myles

  Groves, James Grimble

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W F

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Maxwell, RtHnSirH. E(Wigt'n

  Smith, HC(North'mbTyneside

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Maxwell, W. J. H(Dunfriesshire)

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Spear, John Ward

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords, N. W

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Helder, Augustus

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Stock, James Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hornby, Sir Wm. Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Ed. M.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Tuff, Charles

  Howard, J(Midd., Tottenham)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Hozier, Hn. James HenryCecil

  Myers, William Henry

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Welby, Lt. ColA. C. E (Taunton

  Kennaway, RtHn. Sir John H.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts

  Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

  Percy, Earl

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col W

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

  Kerr, John

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Keswick, William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  King, Sir H. Seymour

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col Edward

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

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Purvis, Robert

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Randies, John S.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lawson, Hn. H. L W(MileEnd)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wyndham-Quin, Col W. H.

  Lawson, JohnGrant(YorksN. R

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  and Viscount Valentia

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brigg, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cremer, William Randal

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Crombie, John William

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Crooks, William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Burt, Thomas

  Davies, Alfred (Carmartnen)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Caldwell, James

  Delany, William

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Bell, Richard

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Benn, John Williams

  Cawley, Frederick

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Boland, John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  1058

  1059

  Duffy, William J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lundon, W.

  Schmann, Charles E.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isleof Wight)

  Ellice, CaptE. C (S Andrw's Bghs)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shackleton, David James

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Sheehy, David

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  M'Kean, John

  Shipman, D. John G.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

  Slack, John Bamford

  Fenwick, Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Field, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Spencer, Rt. HnC. R(Northants

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moss, Samuel

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Murphy, John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fowler. Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gilhooly, James

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt, Cecil William

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Griffiths, Ellis J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

  Tomkinson, James

  Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Toulmin, George

  Hammond, John

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

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

  Ure, Alexander

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Dowd, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Harwood, George

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hemphill, Rt, Hn. Chas. H.

  O'Mara, James

  Weir, James Galloway

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Hope, John Deans(Fife, West)

  Partington, Oswald

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Paulton, James Mellor

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Perks, Robert William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Johnson, John

  Pirie, Duncan, V.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Joicey, Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Price, Robert John

  Wills, Arthur Walters(NDorset

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wilson, Fred W (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wilson, john (Falkirk)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N

  Kennedy, VincentP. (Cavan, W)

  Redmond, John E (Waterford)

  Wood James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Woodhouse, SirJT(Hudd rsfi'd)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Young, Samuel

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Langley, Batty

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roche, John

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Causton.

  Levy, Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Russell, T. W.

  WAYS AND MEANS [21ST MARCH].
  Resolutions reported.
  1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, the sum of £626, 630 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.'
  2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, the sum of £28, 172, 000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th March, put forthwith the Question, "That this

  1061
  House doth agree with the Committee in the Resotions."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 254;Noes, 199. (Division List No 85.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Allhusen, AugustusHenryEden

  Doxford, Sir WilliamTheodore

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Allsop Hon. George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

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

  Arrol, Sir William

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, NR

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lees, Sir Elliott(Birkenhead)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Baird, John George Alexander

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds)

  Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

  Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Forster, Henry William

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Garfit, William

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bigwood, James

  Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bill, Charles

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bingham, Lord

  Gordon, MajEvans (T'rH'mlets

  Massey-Mainwaring. Hn. W. F.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Bond, Edward

  Goschen, Hon. GeorgeJoachim

  Maxwell, W. J. H(Dumfriesshire

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bowles, Lt.-Col H F (Middlesex)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Milner. Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Brassey, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gretton, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shrops)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow

  Bull, William James

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Butcher, John George

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords. N. W

  Myers, William Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Helder, Augustus

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton

  Randles, John S.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Davies, SirHoratio D. (Chatham)

  Konyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Ratcliff, R, F.

  Denny, Colonel

  Kerr, John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Keswick, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFred Dixon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Hn, Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stock, James Henry

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Samuel, SirHarry S. (Limehouse

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles

  Tuff, Charles

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Wylie, Alexander

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Vincent, Col. SirC. E. H(Sheffield

  Wyndham-Qum, Col. W. H.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Smith, HC. (North'mb. Tyneside

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

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

  Webb, Colonel William George

  and Viscount Valentia

  Spear, John Ward

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Allen, Charles P.

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ambrose, Robert

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Crae, George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Field, William

  M'Kean, John

  Asquith, Rt Hn Herb. Henry

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mitchell, Ed. (Fermanagh N.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Mooney, John J.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Bell, Richard

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Moss, Samuel

  Benn, John Williams

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Blake, Edward

  Gilhooly, James

  Murphy, John

  Boland, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Brigg, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  Norman, Henry

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hammond, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Harwood, George

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

  Caldwell, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Chas. H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Kelly, James (RoscommonN)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Malley, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Mara, James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Johnson, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Partington, Oswald

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Crombie, John William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Crooks, William

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Perks, Robert William

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Price, Robert John

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Arthur

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay(Galway)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rea, Russell

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Labouchere, Henry

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Reddy, M.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Langley, Batty

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Richards, Thomas (WMonm'th)

  Duffy, William J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Ellice, CaptEC(SAndrw'sBghs)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lough, Thomas

  Roche, John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Runciman, Walter

  1064

  1065

  Russell, T. W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Willams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters(NDorset)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Sheehy, David

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Ure, Alexander

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wallace, Robert

  Wood, James

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Woodhouse, SirJ. T. (Hudd'rs'd)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay

  Young, Samuel

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Spencer, RtHn. C. R(Northants)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Weir, James Galloway

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Causton.

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Victor Cavendish.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  "To apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, one thousand nine hundred and five and one thousand nine hundred and six, "presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn. "—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he desired to call attention to the interpretation given, rather unexpectedly but no doubt accurately, to the Closure Resolution under which the business of the House was now being carried on. The hon. Member for Clitheroe gave notice as early as he could., after satisfying himself on the merits of a particular question, to disallow one of the Orders now lying on the Table of the House. No attempt had been made to prevent business of a similar kind being taken under the operation of this rule, and on Monday night, after the adoption of that rule, a Bill was read a second time in the House. That night there was an important Resolution on special exception for overtime, as to
  1066
  which there was very strong opinion amongst Labour Members, but it was now held that this could not be taken. That was a great hardship, because those rules were always specially exempt from the twelve o'clock rule.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said the right hon. Gentleman could not have consulted the hon. Member for Clitheroe before putting the Question. During the afternoon he agreed with the hon. Member for Clitheroe that the matter should be fully discussed and that he should not be placed in a worse position through the operation of this rule. The hon. Member expressed his gratitude and satisfaction at that arrangement.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the hon. Member for Clitheroe was aware of his intention to make this statement. It was not a question of one Order, but of the operation of all the Orders, and there was no doubt that different views had been taken on the question.
  *MR. SHACKLETONsaid that what the Home Secretary had stated with reference to the arrangement they arrived at during the afternoon was perfectly true; and he was quite satisfied. But the question was whether the closure rule was intended to strike out a Resolution such as he had put down He agreed with his right hon. friend the Member

  1067
  for the Forest of Dean that this question should be raised.
  MR. WHITLEYasked whether the guillotine Resolution would have the effect of rendering the Parliamentary days in which it operated dies non for the purposes of the forty days on which the rules were to remain on the Table of the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This is a question of the construction of a statute upon which I can give no authoritative opinion. These statutes vary considerably in their terms, but in the present case I understand that the forty days mean forty running days including Sundays and other Parliamentary dies non.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he understood that in consequence of the terms of the Resolution under which the House was at present sitting, none of the notices of Motions on the Paper could be taken.
  *MR. SPEAKERreplied that that was so.
  MR. ASQUITHregarded it as very unfortunate that at eleven o'clock, when there still remained an hour of Parliamentary time, the important point raised by his hon. friend the Member for Clitheroe could not be discussed. He understood the Home Secretary to say, however, that there would be an opportunity for discussing the question.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid it was possible that what the hon. Member for Clitheroe desired might be carried out without the intervention of the House.
  1068
  What he had promised was that if that should not prove to be the case the matter should be further considered.
  MAJOR SEELYdesired to put a question with regard to the misunderstanding with reference to Vote 1 of the Army. The question was whether it would be possible to arrange that the whole of Monday, April 3rd, should be given to the discussion of Vote 1 of the Army, as was intended by the Prime Minister. The intervention of an important private Bill would apparently deprive hon. Members of a part of the time available for the discussion. He also pointed out that had Vote 1 remained under the closure rule it would not have been possible for any other business to have come between it and the House, as the Rule provided that no other business than that of Supply could be taken at any sitting at which Government business had precedence. It might be that this was unavoidable, but he thought some explanation ought to be given. He might add that no breach of faith was imputed to the Prime Minister on that side of the House, least of all by himself.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOURthought the House had been under a misconception on two points. If the right hon. Baronet would look not at the particular closure rule under which the House was working, but at the Standing Order governing Supply, he would see that the Motion in question could not in any case come on on a Thursday until after twelve o'clock. The well-known Supply rule stated that "On a day so allotted—"
  AN. HON. MEMBER: This is not an allotted day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid in that case his argument fell to the ground. Then there remained the question regarding the Army Vote. The point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was one that the hon. Gentleman had dealt with rather fully at Question time by Question and Answer. He thought the hon. Member still laboured under the view that he had something to do with the arrangement of private business. He had absolutely no more to do with it than the hon. Gentleman himself, and he was never consulted upon it. He understood that what had occurred was that the important private Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred was to have been deferred until April 6th, but it appeared that on that date a good many Gentlemen opposite, for a very worthy and agreeable reason, did not desire to be in their places at nine o'clock, and in consequence the day was altered to April 3rd. He hoped that no Member of the House, least of all any Member opposite, would suppose that he could by any action on his part alter what had occurred. He would be glad to be the intermediary to bring the matter before the Chairman of Ways and Means, but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman was unable to be present. Was the House prepared to adhere to the original date of April 6th? The only desire of the Government was that the Bill should come on at the time most convenient to the House. Members usually grumbled because such Bills were put down on private Members' nights; now they grumbled because the Bill was put down on a Government night. If hon. Members could come to some arrangement
  1070
  agreeable to both sides no one would rejoice more than he.
  MR. BLAKEsaid there was no question as to where the responsibility for arranging private Bill business lay. It had been laid by the House upon the shoulders of the Chairman of Ways and Means, whose duty it was to see that such business was fairly allocated between the different days. But he had also to see that arrangements made under such rules as that now governing the proceedings of the House were duly carried out, and he would doubtless see the impropriety of interfering with any such arrangement. On the other hand, if in order to secure the full day which had been promised to the Army Vote it was necessary to postpone certain festive arrangements, he had no doubt the public spirit of the section of the House concerned would lead them to make such arrangements that public business should be properly dealt with.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether there was anything to prevent the Motion of his hon. friend being discussed that evening provided the Government and the mover of the Resolution were willing.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid he was sure that the House would be very glad if the hon. Member for Clitheroe were not deprived of his opportunity, but the Order of the 16th March stood in his way. He had no power, nor had the Government any power, to dispense with the Order of the House, which laid it down that no business other than was specifically mentioned should be taken.
  CAPTAIN DONELANdesired to call attention to a matter of

  1071
  which he had given the Chief Secretary private notice. Nationalist Members had to complain only too frequently of the infamous system of jury packing in Ireland, but a more flagrant case had never been brought to the public notice than had been perpetrated at Cork to-day. In the Watergrasshill case, out of eighty-one jurors compelled to be present in Court, no less than forty-six were ordered to stand aside by the Crown Prosecutor. That was a most shameful case of jury packing, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would inaugurate his term of office by taking Affective steps to put a stop to this gross and shameful prostitution of justice.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said that though the hon. Member had given him notice of his intention to ask a Question, he had not mentioned what the subject of the Question was to be. He had no information on the subject now raised, and he could hardly make a statement while the question Was sub judice.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the case was sub judice, but the administration of justice was not, and the selection of the jury had nothing whatever to do with the merits of the trial. If the Chief Secretary had no information on the subject, possibly the Attorney-General had.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)pointed out that the notice of the hon. Member referred simply to the administration of the law in Ireland, and it was impossible from that to divine what particular case he intended to
  1072
  refer to. He had no information whatever on the point referred to by the hon. Member, but the Crown Prosecutor was acting under his authority, and he was responsible for his action. At the proper time he should be prepared to defend that action if, after full investigation, he approved of it, and hon. Members would have an ample opportunity of discussing it.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to obtain some information, and give it to me to-morrow?
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that although the hon Member had given him notice of his intention to ask a Question, he had not mentioned what the subject of the Question was to be. He had no information on the subject now raised, and he could hardly make a statement while the question was sub judice. The case would come before the Attorney-General and himself in proper course, and the hon. and gallant Member might rely upon it that if no injustice had been committed he would be prepared to defend the action.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question again upon the Motion for Adjournment to-morrow.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information is to when the Bill dealing with the unemployed question, promised in the king's speech, will be introduced?
  [No answer was returned.]
  Adjourned at twenty-one minutes after Eleven o'clock.