Commons Sitting of 15 May 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER, owing to continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STAND ING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. DEPUTY-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, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY-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, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Commercial Union Assurance Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  London United Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Mortgage Insurance Corporation Bill [Lords]; Truro Water Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  London County Council (Money) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords]. To be read a second time to-morrow.
  London Government Scheme (London and Middlesex) Bill. "To confirm a Scheme made under The London Government Act, 1899, relating to the counties of London and Middlesex," presented by Mr. Gerald Balfour; supported by Mr. Wodehouse; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petition for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]
  London Government Scheme (Hackney and Edmonton Unions) Bill. "To confirm a Scheme made under The London Government Act, 1899, relating to the Hackney and Edmonton Unions," presented by Mr. Gerald Balfour; supported by Mr. Wodehouse; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional orders of the Local Government Board relating to Liverpool and Poole and the counties of Essex and Hertford," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Briton Ferry Clifton, Dartmouth, Hardness, Horsforth,
  256
  and Teignmouth," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Acton, Bradford (Yorkshire), the Fylde Water Board, and the Fylde, Preston, and Garstang and the Middlesex Districts Joint Hospital Districts," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 216.]
  Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill. Ordered, That the Evidence taken before the Committee on the Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill, 1903, and the Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill, 1904, be referred to the Committee on the Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Rhondda Urban District Council Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
  London and North Western Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 2).
  Colonel BOWLES reported from the Committee on Group No. 2 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL.
  Petition from West Bristol, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT (LONDON) (No. 2) BILL
  Petition from St. Giles in the Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury, against; to lie upon the Table.
  STREET BETTING BILL.
  Petition from Sheffield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Clapham; Glasgow; and Leeds; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BANKING AND RAILWAY STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Banking and Railway Statistics of Ireland for the half-year ended 31st December, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, with Appendix, 1904–5 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (CONTINUATION CLASSES).
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes providing further instruction for those who have left school, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (FOREST SERVICE).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to the training of Forestry Students [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 11th May; Mr. Price]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 163.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3371 to 3374 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Berks). Return relative thereto [ordered 28th March; Mr. Griffith Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 164.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Average Cost at the Ordnance Factories of 12-inch Mark IX. Gun.
  MR. EMMOTT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the average cost of a 12-inch Mark IX. gun at the Ordnance Factory, exclusive of all parts not subject to great wear and tear from firing.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The cost of a 12-inch Mark IX. gun, complete in Ordnance Factories, is £9,800. The only part subject to great wear and tear from firing is the inner "A" tube, which costs £1,100.

  Cost of Battleship "King Edward VII."
  MR. EMMOTT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the estimated cost of the battleship "King Edward VII." complete with stores, ammunition, coal and oil fuel, at recent prices; and what is the complement of H.M.S. "King Edward VII."
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The estimated cost of H.M.S. "King Edward VII.," complete with stores, ammunition, coal and oil fuel, is £1,568,650. It is not considered desirable to publish the information asked for in the last part of the Question.

  Paupers, Lunatics, and Deaf and Dumb Persons in Public Institutions, and Births, Deaths, and Marriages per 10,000 of population in Ireland.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number per 10,000 of population of paupers, of lunatics, of deaf and dumb supported by public institutions, and compare these figures with similar figures for other parts of the United Kingdom; whether he will supply a similar comparison in respect of births, deaths, and marriages per 10,000 of population; whether he will supply a similar comparison of labourers employed in industrial establishments per 10,000 of population.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The numbers, per 10,000 of the population, of persons maintained by boards of guardians in Ireland, on April 29th, 1905, were as follows—

  Indoor.

  No. per 10,000 of population.

  In workhouse and district schools:—

  Ordinary paupers

  90·2

  Lunatics and epileptics

  8·8

  In extern institutions:—

  Deaf and dumb

  1·0

  Blind, imbeciles, and other persons sent to hospitals for special treatment

  1·4

  Outdoor.

  Receiving ordinary relief

  133·7

  Receiving special relief under Section 13 of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898

  27·9

  Total

  263·0

  The number, per 10,000 of the population, of deaf and dumb persons in special institutions for such persons on Census night, 1901 (the latest date for which figures are available), was 1·2. The similar proportion of lunatics supported in public institutions (including hose in workhouses as above-mentioned) tn January 1st, 1904, the latest date
  260
  for which figures are available, was 49·6. The numbers of births, deaths, and marriages, per 10,000 of the estimated population, for the year 1904, were:—Births, 236; Deaths, 181; Marriages, 52. No information is available upon which a reply can be given to the last inquiry. I am unable to furnish figures for other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Names and Qualifications of Inspectors in the Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many agricultural inspectors are employed by the Irish Department of Agriculture, what are their names, what are the qualifications of those officials for their present duties, and what was their occupation before they received the appointment of agricultural inspectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The number of agricultural inspectors employed by the Department is eight. Their names, with particulars as to their previous employment and qualifications, are as follows:—J. G. Gordon, B.Sc.—Manager of his own farm in county Tyrone; Principal of Holmes Chapel School of Agriculture, Cheshire; B.S. in Agriculture, Edinburgh University. T. S. Porter—Superintendent of the Agricultural Department, Irish Land Commission, in which capacity he supervised the agricultural operations of the Congested Districts Board. Transferred to the Department of Agriculture in pursuance of Sections 2 and 22 of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act, 1899. J. Wood, M.A., B.Sc.—Assistant Lecturer in Agriculture at University College, North Wales; Assistant Lecturer in West of Scotland Agricultural College; B.Sc. in Agriculture, Durham University. T. Carroll, M.R.I.A.—Professor of Agriculture and Superintendent of the Albert Model Farm, Glasnevin, county Dublin; and Agricultural Inspector under the Board of National Education, Ireland. J. H. Hinchcliff, Ph.D.—Technical Assistant in Agricultural Department of Yorkshire College,

  261
  Leeds; Gold Medallist, Royal Agricultural Society; Ph.D. of Leipsic University. A. R. Robertson, F.H.A.S.—Estate Agent's Assistant, and subsequently Technical Assistant in Agricultural Branch of Department; Fellow of the Highland Agricultural Society. E. Gallagher—Editor, Irish Farmers' Gazette; trained at Albert Model Farm, Glasnevin, county Dublin; Holder of Diploma and Medal of Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland. M. J. Cleary, M.R.C.V.S. (Inspector for live stock schemes)—Veterinary Surgeon in private practice; Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

  Titled Personages and Ministers of the Crown fined for Furious Motor-Car Driving.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consent to the granting of a Return of the titled personages and Ministers of the Crown who have, during the last two years, been fined for the driving of motor-cars to the peril of the safety of the public.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am informed that this Return cannot be given without a great deal of trouble, even if it were not an invidious matter to single out a particular class of the community for criticism.

  Motor-Bicycles—Alteration of Numbers to avoid Identification.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the shifting of motor-bicycle numbers, that the riders might escape in case of an accident, and to the evidence in the case of the King v. Flood, recently tried by the Recorder of Dublin, in which a boy was seriously injured by a motor-bicycle on which there was a fraudulent number; and whether he intends to initiate legislation to regulate defects in the numbering and registration of motors calculated to conduce to the escape of persons whose furious driving causes loss of life or limb.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The case, so far as appears from the Question, seems fairly covered by Section 5
  262
  of the Motor-Car Act of 1903. I am informed that the Department has no information as to the shifting of motor-bicycle numbers generally. The Metropolitan Police have taken action in a considerable number of cases in which various frauds have been perpetrated in the use of motor-car numbers, but they are unable apparently to distinguish which of these, if any, are motor-bicycle cases. The Departments are not of opinion that legislation is desirable, at any rate until the Act comes up for review next session. It expires on December 31st, 1906.

  Penalties for Furious Motor-Car Driving.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the fines inflicted for the furious driving of motor-cars are, having regard to the fact that the owners of these cars are necessarily in easy circumstances, so small as to be ineffective as deterrents to the commission of such offences; and whether he proposes to initiate any legislation to secure adequate punishment for these offenders.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am advised that in the opinion of the Department concerned there is no reason to think that the fines are inadequate. The Act enables substantial fines to be exacted, viz.: £20 for the first offence, £50 for the second or imprisonment not exceeding three months. In addition to this the driver's licence may be suspended, the holder being thus disqualified from driving a motor-car for such period as the Court thinks fit. The Act further provides that nothing in it shall affect any liability of the driver or owner of a motor-car by virtue of any statute or at common law. The motorist is thus liable to all civil and criminal consequences of his acts.

  Number of Regular Troops required, and Position assigned to the Volunteers for Home Defence.
  MR. MCCRAE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the number of troops necessary for home defence based on the scheme agreed to by the Committee of Imperial Defence.
  MR. MCCRAE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state what will be the position assigned to the Volunteers in the scheme of national defence considered necessary by the Committee of Imperial Defence to repel invasion; and whether he will give an early day for the discussion of Vote 5, Army Estimates (Volunteers).
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am afraid, owing to other claims on the Committee of Supply, I cannot fix the date for this particular Vote. With all respect, I do not think that the matter raised in these Questions by the hon. Gentleman can be usefully dealt with in the form of Question and Answer.

  Extra Fees paid to the Law Officers of the Crown.
  MR. WHITLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what were the four cases in which increased fees above the ordinary professional scales were sanctioned for payment to the Law Officers, and what amount was paid in each case; and if he can state the amounts paid in other cases where they exceeded £200 in any individual case.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) None of the fees in the cases to which the Question appears to refer were above the ordinary professional scales. The fees were as follows:—Attorney-General: Venezuelan Claims Arbitration—In all 1,050 guineas, for preparing case and two counter cases, and for brief; refreshers, 50 guineas a day, and fees for consultations. British Guiana Arbitration—Preparing written argument, 500 guineas, and fees for consultations. Solicitor-General: Rex v. Osborn and others—200 guineas; refreshers, 30 guineas a day, and fees for consultations. Rex v. Hooley and Lawson—250 guineas; refreshers, 30 guineas a day, and fees for consultations. It would require a considerable time to furnish an Answer to the last part of the Question, and without going into the particulars of each case in which the total amount may have reached as much as 200 guineas it would afford no useful information. It is believed that there would be very few of such cases.

  Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903—Medical Officials under Section 55.
  MR. WALLACE: To ask the Lord-Advocate, in regard to Section 55 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, whether he will give instructions to the procurators-fiscal that, for the purposes of this section, any registered medical practitioner is to be regarded as a medical officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  Expenditure from Public Funds on Wick, Fraserburgh, and Peterhead Harbours.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Lord Advocate how much money out of public funds has been spent respectively on the harbours of Wick, Fraserburgh, and Peterhead.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Public Works Loan Commissioners have advanced to the Wick and Pulteney Town Harbour Trustees £125,000 (of which sum, however, a large amount was expended on the breakwater which was totally destroyed by storms, and was remitted by The Public Works Loans Act, 1902); the Fraserburgh Harbour Commissioners, £195,000; the Peterhead Harbour Trustees, £72,000. A grant of £11,745 has also been paid to the Fraserburgh Hariour Commissioners.

  Non-provided Schools in England and Wales—Cost of Maintenance for 1904–5.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what was the total cost of maintaining the non-provided schools in England and Wales during the educational year 1904–5, distinguishing the amounts received from Government grants, local taxation, voluntary contributions, endowments, and any other sources of revenue; and what during the same period was the annual value of the school buildings of such schools.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I am afraid that the Board do not possess any of the information asked for in the Question.

  Structural Alterations in Schools—Duties of Board of Education Inspectors.
  MR. BILL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that conflicting orders have been given to school managers by His Majesty's inspectors and those appointed by education committees of county councils with reference to structural alterations; and if he will consider the desirability of issuing a circular strictly defining the duties of His Majesty's inspectors in such cases.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) His Majesty's inspectors have no power to give orders as to structural alterations; they report to the Board. It is for the Board to decide to what extent the inspector's suggestions shall be enforced; but in practice the local education authority has always an opportunity of expressing an opinion before a final decision is arrived at. The relations of a local authority's inspector to his authority are presumably of a similar character. Managers of voluntary schools possess a right of appeal to the Board as to the reasonableness of a local authority's requirements; and I do not think it would be necessary or desirable to issue a circular to His Majesty's inspectors on the subject of duties which are already clearly defined and understood.

  Trustees Appointed under the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: To ask Mr. Attorney-General how many judicial trustees have been appointed under the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I have not yet been able to ascertain the exact figures, but the number is, I understand, not large.

  Sick Leave in the Central Telegraph Office—Case of Mr. Bullamore.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telegraphist, named Bullamore, who was absent from duty at the Central Office from 12th April to 4th May, has had his pay stopped for this period; and whether, seeing that the telegraphist provided medical certificates showing that the absence during
  266
  the whole of this period was due to illness, he will explain the reason for punishing the telegraphist for obeying the injunctions of his medical advisers, as well as for his decision to set aside the expressed opinions of two medical men.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Mr. Bullamore has been examined by the Chief Medical Officer of the Post Office as well as by the Medical Referee to the Treasury, and both gentlemen are of opinion that he was and is fit for work, and that he will not be injured by it. This opinion is not concurred in by the private practitioners whom Mr. Bullamore consulted, but I am not prepared to set it aside for that reason. Mr. Bullamore was informed in March last that pay could not be allowed in respect of further sick absences except upon the recommendation of my official medical advisers.

  Selection of Staff for the Marine Post Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, since it was stated that the question of competency was the one that would have effect when officers would be selected for the marine post office, he will say if it is his intention to appoint the officers on the Dublin and Queenstown T. P. O., in view of the fact that these men have been dealing with American mails for twenty years, and that by their training they are as well fitted for the position of sorting clerks on the marine post office as any other officials.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) In reply to this Question, I cannot do better than refer to the Answer gived to a Question on the same subject, asked on the 9th instant†. As I then intimated, convenience in working the system and competency to perform the duties will govern the selection of officers; and I cannot pledge myself to the employment of men willing to be transferred to Liverpool, irrespectively of the convenience of the service.

  Petition of Ilford Postmen.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to reply to the petition sent to him by the Ilford postmen
  † See (4) Debates, CXIV., 1339.

  267
  on 21st February, and acknowledged by the Secretary of the General Post Office about the 8th March, who promised that it should receive due consideration; and whether he will grant the Ilford postmen a maximum wage of 28s., seeing that the maximum wage in the adjacent parish of East Ham, where rent and cost of living is cheaper, is 30s.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The petition from the Ilford postmen is receiving attention, and a reply will be given to the memorialists as soon as the necessary inquiries have been completed. I am not in a position to say at present what the decision will be.

  Promotion in the Dublin Post Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what is the number of superior appointments to be created in the telegraph office and in the sorting office, Dublin, as the result of the new scheme; and whether the appointments will be given to the staffs of the Dublin Office, and in each case the selections will be made solely according to seniority and efficiency.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The question of the number of additional superior appointments to be created in the Dublin Post Office is being considered, and the result will be announced to the staff in due course. The officers promoted will be those best fitted for the higher posts, due regard being paid to seniority.

  Journeys of Officials employed on the Great Southern and Western Travelling Post Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that certain officers employed on the Great Southern and Western Travelling Post Office have to proceed from Dublin to Cork on two days of the week, notwithstanding that they were originally appointed on the condition that Limerick Junction was to be the terminus of the journey, and that on the other four days of the week the officers travel to Limerick Junction only; and whether, seeing that the result of the trips to Cork necessitates the officers paying for lodgings in Dublin, Cork, and Limerick Junction, and that the journey from Dublin to Cork and back in a single day has been condemned by the medical
  268
  officer, he will see that the practice is discontinued and the men required to travel according to the original stipulation only.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will make inquiry on this subject and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Terms of Reference to Reformatory and Industrial Schools Committee.
  MR. BILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the terms of the reference to the Committee just appointed on Reformatory and Industrial Schools will include the consideration of the question of pensions or superannuation allowances for masters, matrons, and officers of the schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The Answer is in the negative. The terms of reference to the Committee, which the hon. and gallant Member will have seen in the Press notices, relate only to the provision of funds for the schools; and it is not proposed to extend the inquiry further.

  Case of Anthrax at a Wellingborough Boot Factory.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a report from either or both the local medical inspectors under the Factory and Workshop Act as to the fatal case of anthrax at Wellingborough to a shoe hand named Albert Jones; whether such report, if any, indicates any special point on which further regulations will be made to better secure the safety of those who have to handle leather; and, if no such report has been received, whether he will cause a special inquiry to be held into the circumstances attending the death of Albert Jones, and take any further steps necessary to ensure greater safety in this class of work.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The fatal case of anthrax in a boot and shoe factory to which the hon. Member refers has been the subject of careful investigation. It is impossible to trace with certainty the cause of infection; but it seems probable that the disease may have been contracted from spores of anthrax in the leather,

  269
  which had retained their vitality through all the tanning processes. As no raw hides or skins are used in the factory in question no special rules or regulations under the Factory Act apply to it; and in view of the extreme rarity of such cases as the present one, and of the doubt as to the source of the infection, no case is as yet made out for any special action.

  Indian Army—Transfer of Officers—Compensation for Expenses of Removal.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet consulted the Government of India on the Question put to him on 24th March,† 1904, as to whether the attention of his military advisers has been directed to the fact that, as a result of the unification of the Indian Army, officers are liable to be shifted on promotion, and more frequently without promotion, from one end of India to another, sometimes within short periods, each change involving a break up and renewal of establishment and a considerable expense to the officer concerned: and whether, at least in cases where the transfer is not accompanied by substantial promotion, but is made with no advantage to the individual, reasonable compensation for the expense involved to him by such transfer could be awarded, and what steps have been taken.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have consulted the Government of India, who reply that, while the liability of military officers to transfer is inseparable from the conditions of military service, no recent changes have been made in regulations; and transfers, though sometimes necessary for the good of the service, are rare in the case of regimental officers, and with regard to staff officers are never ordered without due consideration. The travelling expenses of officers on transfer are paid.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants—Case of John O'Driscoll.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the application of John O'Driscoll to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement in the evicted farm at Coolclogher, Hegarty Estate, near Millstreet, county Cork, whether, in view of the denial by
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 606.
  Mr. O'Driscollof the landlord's statement as to his status as an evicted tenant, and also to the fact that the holding is untenanted, the Commissioners will direct an inspector to examine into all the circumstances of the case and give the evicted tenant's representative an opportunity of explaining his claims under the provisions of the Land Act of 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long,) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to his Questions of 4th† and 13th§ April last. The owner of this estate has not expressed any desire to sell it, and the Commissioners, therefore, do not propose to direct any inquiry into the matter.

  Purchase of Dr. Joyce's Farm at Carrickmore—Failure of Tenant to Pay Instalments.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Estates Commissioners purchased recently from Dr. Joyce, J.P., Carrick-more, county Tyrone, a farm of sixty-nine acres for the purpose of transferring it to a Mr. Dunlop, from county Donegal, and that Dunlop refuses to pay instalments because the arable acreage is less than represented by the vendor; and will he say if the farm was inspected and mapped and extent of arable ground stated thereon; what is the Poor Law valuation and the amount of the purchase money; and whether, in view of the second inspection made at the request of Dunlop, will he state whether the second inspector's report bears out the contention of Dunlop that the arable acreage is less than represented by the vendor.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Estates Commissioners were not the purchasers in this case; Mr. Dunlop purchased direct from the vendor. The Commissioners had the lands inspected, with the object of satisfying themselves as to the security, and, being so satisfied, they sanctioned the advance. Dunlop has raised objection to pay the annuity upon the grounds stated, but the Commissioners cannot entertain this objection, and proceedings are being taken for the recovery of the amount due.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxliv., 307.
  § See (4) Debates, cxlv., 51.

  Increased Pay for Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he intends carrying out the recommendations contained in the Commissioners' Reports of 1901 in regard to increased pay of Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if so, when.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Effect has already been given to such of the recommendations of the Committee as do not involve legislation. I am unable at present to say when legislation on the subject can be introduced.

  Complaints against Belmullet and Bangor-Erris Police Force.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether any charges have been made by Patrick Murphy, of Munhin, Bangor-Erris, county Mayo, against members of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed in Belmullet and in Bangor-Erris, county Mayo, and, if so, has any inquiry into these charges been ordered by the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Yes, Sir, charges of various kinds against several members of the force have been made by the person named. These complaints were carefully investigated and found to be either unfounded or frivolous, and to have been made from vindictive motives.

  Promotion in the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that young men joining the Dublin Metropolitan Police are guaranteed that all promotions shall be made from the ranks of the force, according to seniority, ability, and good conduct, no reference being made to influence; and whether he can say if those conditions have been observed in filling the higher positions in the force.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Promotions are made from the ranks, and are regulated by the fulfilment of requirements, of which influence is certainly not one, common to all disciplined forces of police.

  Delay in Payment of Salary of Teacher of Armagh M. N. School, Roll No. 101.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the reason of the delay in paying to the teacher of the Armagh M. N. School, Roll No. 101, his salary for the quarter ending the 31st March, notwithstanding that his quarterly return and salary claim were forwarded to the Education Office on 1st April.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The senior inspector has been directed to inquire into a charge which has been preferred against this teacher, and, pending the receipt of the inspector's report, payment of salary has been withheld.

  Condition of Irish Poor Law Medical Service.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the recent report of Surgeon-General Evatt, as to the condition of the Irish Poor Law Medical Service, and if he will grant a small Committee to consider the grievances complained of.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover to the similar Question addressed to him on the 29th April†, 1904.

  Experiment by Irish Board of Agriculture regarding Impregnation of Soil with Nitrogen Bacteria.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Board of Agriculture have made any experiments regarding the impregnation of the soil with nitrogen bacteria; whether the experiments have proved successful; and, if so, will steps be taken to instruct the Irish farmers in this process.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department have inoculated soils at numerous centres in the manner referred to in the Question, but until the crops have had time to grow it is impossible to say with what results. If the system proves successful the agricultural instructors appointed by county committees will show farmers how to use the preparation.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxiv., 12.

  Corporal Punishment of Chinese Labourers in the Transvaal.
  MR. BEAUMONT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of Chinamen who have been sentenced to corporal punishment since the introduction of indentured labour into the Transvaal, the number of strokes in each case, and in how many instances the sentence was carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Returns for July to January, published in [Cd. 2401], show, as I understand, that five were sentenced during that period to twenty strokes for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, the Return for February which was subsequently received shows one case sentenced to ten strokes for the same offence. The sentences were, I understand, carried out. I should add that, as is pointed out at page 41 of [Cd. 2401], by the law of the Colony no sentence of whipping imposed by a magistrate can be carried out till the record is sent to and the sentence confirmed by a Judge of the Supreme Court.

  Pistols Manufactured at Enfield.

  Year

  Description.

  Number.

  Rate.

  Amount.

  1878–9

  —

  —

  Nil

  1879–1880

  —

  —

  Nil.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1880–1881

  Pistols, Revolver, Enfield Mark I

  11,112

  2

  19

  7·2

  33,110

  16

  4¾

  1881–2

  Pistols, Revolver, B. L. Enfield pattern

  1,307

  2

  19

  7·2

  3,894

  13

  8

  1882–3

  Pistols, Revolver, Mark II.

  8,480

  3

  5

  3

  27,664

  19

  2

  1883–4

  Pistols, Revolver, Mark II.

  1,002

  2

  12

  11

  2,651

  12

  6¾

  1884–5

  Pistols, Revolver, Mark II.

  2,623

  2

  3

  11

  5,763

  14

  10¼

  1884–5

  Pistols, Gunmetal, Instantaneous Fuze, Mark II.

  9

  3

  4

  3·2

  28

  0

  5

  1885–6

  Pistols, Revolver, B. L. Enfield, Mark II.

  2,050

  1

  16

  4½

  3,720

  7

  4¾

  1885–6

  Pistols, Revolver, Gunmetal, Instantaneous Fuze, Mark II.

  320

  2

  19

  6

  952

  2

  2¼

  1886–7

  Pistol, Revolver, B. L. Enfield, Mark II.

  1

  1

  16

  4

  1

  16

  4

  I will make inquiry as to any subsequent sentences of the kind.

  Pistols Manufactured at Enfield Small Arms Factory.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for War what number of pistols were manufactured at the Enfield Small Arms Factory and the cost per pistol for the years 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, and 1885; what was the amount spent on plant and machinery for pistols at Enfield for the same period; and what has become of the machinery.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) As regards the first part of the Question a statement containing the required statistics is attached. As regards the second part of the Question the amounts expended cannot be ascertained as no separate account for plant and machinery for pistols was kept. As regards the third part of the Question such machines as could be utilised and were worth conversion were altered and used for the manufacture of rifles, and the remainder were brought to produce.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Transport of Soldiers in South Africa.
  *GENEEAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in South Africa soldiers are moved by railway in carriages which are set apart for natives, and in which no white man will travel, and that when soldiers are placed in these carriages slips marked "soldiers," or "military," and which are kept available for this purpose, are pasted over the word "natives"; and whether, in the interests of the Army, he will take steps to have this practice discontinued, and British troops conveyed under the same conditions and in the same carriages as other white men.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): Nothing is known at the War Office of the matter alleged in the Question. Inquiries will, however, be made.
  *GENERAL LAURIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain as to the protests made by Commanding Officers against this treatment of their men?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No such complaints have been received at the War Office.

  The Tibetan Convention.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if any modifications in the terms of the Tibet Convention have been agreed upon in consequence of the negotiations that have recently taken place between Great Britain and China; if so, will he state the nature and particulars of the changes to be effected; and, further, if the Government of India have been consulted on the subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ord): The negotiations as to the adhesion of China to the Tibet Convention are still proceeding, and I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject. The negotiations are being
  276
  conducted on behalf of His Majesty's Government in India by the Government of India.

  The Agreement with the Mullah.
  *MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now lay upon the Table the terms of the provisional agreement which has been concluded with the Mullah.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn on the 10th inst†. There is no object in laying the terms of a provisional agreement which is to be superseded by the fuller treaty concluded with the Italian Government.
  *MR. LEIF JONES: Is there any special reason for withholding this agreement?
  EARL PERCY: There is no reason whatever.
  *MR. LEIF JONES: How does the noble Lord know that there is no object in laying it on the Table of the House?
  EARL PERCY: It is an incomplete document, merely an abbreviated form of the Italian Agreement, and it is to be superseded by another treaty.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Can the noble Lord give an explanation of the long delay in the information coming to the Government as to the actual position between them and the Mullah. The arrangement was made six or eight weeks ago.
  EARL PERCY: I gave an identical Answer ten days ago. Some of the delay has been caused through the transmission of telegrams between this country and Somaliland.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): Will the definitive agreement, when it
  † See (4) Debates, cxlv., 1478.

  277
  arrives, be laid on the Table of the house?
  EARL PERCY: Oh, certainly.
  MR. CROOKS (Woolwich): Will it have the Mullah's signature?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Savings Bank Capital Account.
  DR. MACNAMARAI beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the statement of Sir E. W. Hamilton, in his evidence given before the Select Committee on Savings Banks Funds, 1902 (Question 1152), that if Consols went down to 90 there would be a serious loss on the capital account of the savings banks; and whether, as Consols have fallen to 90 and lower, he will say if this loss on the capital account has been incurred; and, if so, is it his intention to propose measures for making the same good.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): Yes, Sir; I have seen Sir E. Hamilton's evidence before the Committee in which he pointed out that, if Consols went down to 90 and it were necessary to realise them at that price, a great loss of capital would be incurred—not, however, by the savings bank depositors, but by the Exchequer. But no necessity has arisen, or, as far as I can see, is likely to arise, for selling at current prices the Consols which are held as permanent investments. No such loss has therefore been realised, and no special measures are necessary in respect of the savings banks.

  Staff of Marine Post Office on American Liners.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state whether men from the Liverpool Post Office have been appointed to the marine post office which is to be established on the American liners; and does he intend to appoint any officials from the Dublin Office who have for years dealt efficiently with American mails, and who are willing to transfer to Liverpool
  278
  in the event of their being selected for the duty.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): In reply to this Question and that asked by the hon. Member for the College Division of Dublin, I cannot do better than refer to the Answer given to a Question on the same subject asked on the 9th instant.† As I then intimated, convenience in working the system and competency to perform the duties will govern the selection of officers; and I cannot pledge myself to the employment of men willing to be transferred to Liverpool, irrespectively of the convenience of the service.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the principle of natural selection that prevailed on the Treasury Bench would be adopted.
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir. The best man for the job.
  The following is the Question of the hon. Member for College Green referred to in the above Answer—
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, since it was stated that the question of competency was the one that would have effect when officers would be selected for the marine post office, he will say if it is his intention to appoint the officers on the Dublin and Queenstown T. P. O., in view of the fact that these men have been dealing with American mails for twenty years, and that by their training they are as well fitted for the position of sorting clerks on the marine post office as any other officials.

  Books for Prisoners.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the Rev. Charles Jennings (who on Friday the 5th inst. was sent to Worcester Gaol for refusing to pay the education rate), that he took with him to prison three books, viz. "The Imitation
  † See (4) Debates, cxlv., 13 9.

  279
  of Christ," by Thomas à Kempis, the Commentaries of Julius Cæsar, and Charles Lamb's "Essays of Elia," that he was allowed to retain the Thomas à Kempis and Cæsar, but was not allowed to keep the "Essays of Elia"; will he say what authority is responsible for this action, and on what grounds was this selection of books made; and whether the exercise of such authority meets with the sanction of the Prison Commissioners.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): The prison rules provide for the supply to prisoners of books from the prison library, and do not allow them to have others, except by special authority. In this case the governor, out of special consideration to the prisoner, who was only under a sentence of seven days, allowed him to have two of his own books to read as well as a supply from the library, and in all the circumstances I entirely agree with the Prison Commissioners in thinking that he would not have been justified in allowing more than two.
  In answer to a further Question,
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the matter was one for the discretion of the governor.
  SIR JOHN GORST: What authority settles what books shall be in the prison library?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I cannot say, but I will ascertain if the hon. Gentleman desires.

  Telephone Fires in London.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report of the inquiry into the cause of the telephone fires at the Mansion House Chambers and Oxford Court, Cannon Street, which disclosed the fact that the fires broke out simultaneously through a telephone cable coming into contact with a high tension current; and, in view of expert evidence as to the danger of such currents being in proximity to telephone cables
  280
  will he consider the expediency of appointing a Committee to inquire into the subject of telephone risks and their prevention.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: My attention has been called to this matter by a report made to me by the coroner for the City of London, and I have also consulted the authorities of the General Post Office. I understand that the question of preventing the occurrence of similar fires in the future raises no problems of special difficulty. The expert advisers of the General Post Office, and also, I do not doubt, those of the National Telephone Company, constantly keep in view the prevention of risks arising from the laying of telephone cables, and in these circumstances I agree with the coroner's jury in thinking that it is not necessary to hold a Government inquiry.

  Destruction of Stray London Dogs.
  MR. MCCRAE: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Denbighshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the veterinary and other yards to which the Metropolitan Police take stray dogs are subject to any and what inspection, and if there exists any and what prescribed method of destroying such dogs; whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the yard in High Street, Bromley, a dog was recently buried alive under the mistaken belief that it had been destroyed, and that at the same yard a dog was recently destroyed by suffocation and suffered great agony during the process; and whether he proposes to take any and what action in the matter.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Dogs which are seized by the Metropolitan Police within the county of London or within the limits of the Metropolitan Streets Act are conveyed by them to the Dogs Home at Battersea. The local authorities outside the County of London are the county and borough councils, who appoint their own receiving places for dogs and their own veterinary inspectors, and are solely responsible for the control and inspection of those places and for the method of destruction

  281
  adopted. The yard in the High Street, Bromley, is under the Kent County Council. I am informed that the dogs are never suffocated there, but they are destroyed by means of prussic acid poisoning. It appears that on the 4th August, 1904, a dog which had been so poisoned by the veterinary inspector and which apparently was dead was buried lightly in a pit, but was subsequently found to be alive and was rescued. The case was investigated by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who came to the conclusion, I understand, that no cruelty was intentionally committed, but recommended that a considerable time should elapse between the poisoning and the burial of the dog.

  London Electricity Bills.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that numerous Private Bills dealing with the supply of electricity in bulk within the Metropolitan district are now under consideration by a Select Committee of the House of Lords, the Government intend to proceed with their Supply of Electricity Bill; and, if so, when; and whether, in the event of the Government proceeding with that Bill, he will see that the Second Reading is taken in time to allow it to be referred to the same Select Committee to which such, if any, of the Private Bills as come down from the House of Lords are referred.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Black-friars): The principal object of the Supply of Electricity Bill is to facilitate procedure by Provisional Order instead of by Bill, and thus to save expense to local authorities and companies who may wish to obtain statutory powers for electric supply. I hope to be able to proceed with the Bill, which was fully considered by a Committee in another place last year, as soon as public business admits. The Bill is a Public Bill and has no special reference to the Metropolitan district. I do not
  282
  think it would be at all convenient to refer a Public Bill to a Committee charged with the duty of considering the specific proposals of certain Local Bills.

  Accidents on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he has received a report of an accident which occurred at Copy Pit, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, on 23rd April last, to the 9.20 p.m. goods train, Hollinwood to Rose Grove, which consisted of 120 loaded wagons, weight 1,000 tons, with, two engines in front and one in the rear, due to the drawbar hook of the eightieth wagon from the train engine breaking whilst the train, owing to its length, hung over both sides of the summit, and the latter portion running back and off the line at some catch points; and whether he proposes to take any action with a view to preventing such accidents.
  MR. BELL: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he has received a report of a breakaway which occurred at Copy Pit, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, on 5th May instant, to the 7.23 p.m. goods train from Leeds to Rose Grove, consisting of eighty loaded wagons with two engines in front and one in the rear, the front portion running away to Cliviger East Cabin; whether he can state the number of accidents and breakaways which have occurred during the last three years in this district of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, and if they were due to the length of the trains; and whether he will take immediate action with a view to preventing such accidents.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Neither of these accidents has been reported to the Board of Trade, nor do the circumstances as stated by the hon. Member appear to have been such as to require them to be reported, if, as I gather, no personal injury resulted. Since the 1st January, 1902, eleven accidents in the district referred to, due to the breaking away of parts of goods trains, have been reported by the railway company in question, although in eight of these cases no one was injured. The Board's information does not show whether the length of the trains caused or contributed to any of

  283
  these accidents. Advantage will be taken of an inquiry about to be held by one of the Board's inspecting officers into another accident in the neighbourhood to make some investigation into the general question to which the hon. Member has drawn attention.

  Hungry London Children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has now considered the desirableness of making any charge incurred under the Order dealing with the feeding of hungry children in London a charge upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and not upon the poor rate for each parish; and, if so, whether he has arrived at any decision upon the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): As the hon. Member is aware, legislation would be necessary to give effect to his suggestion. I could not give any promise to introduce a Bill for this purpose.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the Local Government Board spread the incidence of this cost over London?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot go beyond what I said on a previous occasion. I think the matter is worthy of consideration, but I do not see any chance of introducing the necessary legislation this session.

  Feeding of Fatherless Children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Order dealing with the feeding of hungry children will enable boards of guardians to assist under it fatherless children living with their mothers, and to assist the children of wives not living with their husbands.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Order would not apply in the first case mentioned in the Question, or in the second, if the child was not residing with the father. The limitations in the Order are consequent on the terms of the enactments under which it was issued, but in
  284
  any case of the kind referred to, if the child was, in fact, destitute of necessary food, and application for relief was made on his behalf to the guardians or the relieving officer by any responsible person, it would be incumbent on the guardians, and in a case of sudden or urgent necessity on the relieving officer, to afford the requisite relief. In general, however, it could not be given on loan.

  Heavy Motor Traffic in London.
  *GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has seen any of the furniture removal vans, with locomotive fittings and with another furniture van attached as a trailer, which are now occupying the streets of the Metropolis, and which are permitted under the heavy motorcar regulations to travel at a speed far in excess of what is allowed to horse traffic; and whether he will take steps by personal observation and otherwise to examine the situation and make such modifications as will restore to the general public the free use of the public roads.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand there are a certain number of vans answering to the description in the Question at present in use in the Metropolis. Under the regulations the speed of a heavy motor-car drawing a trailer is not to exceed five miles an hour, and I understand that the police have been directed to see that the vehicles in question do not proceed at a speed in excess of the legal maximum.
  *GENERAL LAURIE: But is it not a fact that these heavy motor-cars with rubber tyres are allowed to go eight miles an hour?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think these cars have rubber tyres.
  *GENERAL LAURIE: I am certain that under the regulations they can travel eight miles an hour and go much quicker than five miles.

  Holborn Town Clerk's Defalcations.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what

  285
  part the audit of the Local Government Board has played in connection with the frauds of which the late town clerk of Holborn has been convicted; whether he has any official information showing that robberies to the amount of thousands of pounds have for years been passed by the audit, which, but for the fact that the town clerk became ill, would not have been discovered; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: At the last audit, the district auditor discovered that Mr. Jones, the late town clerk of Holborn, had improperly retained a large sum received by him on behalf of the borough council, and as a result of this discovery all the frauds of which Mr. Jones was convicted were at once brought to light. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative, and I may say that it was prior to Mr. Jones's illness that the improper retention of a considerable part of the moneys in question was discovered by the auditor, who thereupon called upon Mr. Jones to produce proof that he had not received any part of the remainder. The case does not appear to be one in which it is necessary that I should take any action.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a request that some person representing the Government should assist the Holborn Borough Council in its present inquiry into its administration; and, if so, whether he can comply with the request.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I received a letter from the Holborn Borough Council, in which they stated that while feeling themselves perfectly competent to investigate their own affairs they would welcome the presence of any official the Local Government Board would care to send to assist at the meetings of the special committee investigating the defalcations of the late town clerk. This communication received my consideration, but I did not think it necessary to avail myself of the offer of the council.
  MR. BENN: Then does the right hon. Gentleman propose to allow this investigation to be resumed without any appearance at the inquiry on the part of his Department?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think the interference of the Local Government Board is called for. Had the borough council requested me to send an official I might have done so, but they did not.
  MR. BENN: But you had a letter from the council?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to argue the matter.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORWill the right hon. Gentleman take action in accordance with the last clause of the Question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There has been no request.

  Secret Commissions.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that during last year the Holborn Borough Council spent £1,200 in opposing Bills affecting London, and that Messrs. Bircham and Co., Parliamentary agents to the borough, paid to the late town clerk, unknown to the Holborn Borough Council, 33⅓ per cent. commission of all profit charges on such business; and whether he will take steps to extend the provisions of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, to such payments.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the expenses referred to in the first part of the Question approximated to the sum mentioned. It is stated in a letter from Messrs. Bircham & Co. published in the Press that they never held any appointment or retainer from the borough council, but that for some eighteen years past they had undertaken for Mr. Jones (the late town clerk) on "agency terms" certain work in connection with Parliamentary business, and that under this arrangement they made

  287
  certain payments to him. The question of any extension of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, is hardly one for the Local Government Board, but I may remind the hon. Member that the Prime Minister stated on Thursday last† that payments of this description are now engaging the attention of the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, and also of the Incorporated Law Society.
  MR. BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Bircham's bill was paid in full by the Holborn Town Council and that the money which Jones received was received secretly by him and without the knowledge of the council? If so, is not this a matter coming under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR:It may be so, but I am not prepared to say "Yes" or "No." It would not be a matter for the Local Government Board, but rather for the law officers of the Crown.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman says Messrs. Bircham had long done business on "agency terms." What is the meaning of that phrase?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I said that was the statement made to me in a letter from Messrs. Bircham.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: But the right hon. Gentleman adopted it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not well acquainted with the facts. I simply conveyed to the House the information given to me.

  Parliamentary Agents and 'Agency Terms."
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has any further information as to the nature of the payments made by Messrs. Bircham & Co., Parliamentary agents, by way of commission to the late town clerk of Holborn; and whether he is aware that part of this commission has, since the trial, been refunded to the borough council.
  † See page 57.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FTNLAY, Inverness Burghs): My right hon. friend has asked mo to answer this Question. I understand that the facts are as follows: Mr. Jones was solicitor to the Holborn Borough Council, and employed Messrs. Bircham as Parliamentary agents upon. What are known as "agency terms," that is, that the fees should be divided between the solicitor and the agents. Messrs. Bircham accordingly paid Jones as his share of the fees which they had received two cheques; one for £116 13s. in respect of work up to the end of 1903, and the other for £94 14s. for work up to the end of 1904. The first of these cheques was cashed by Jones, but the cheque for £94 14s. was found uncashed among his papers by the borough council after his defalcations had come to light. The council claimed that they were entitled to it, and Messrs. Bircham paid to them the amount on receiving their indemnity against other claims by Jones or his representatives. It now appears that Jones, by the terms of his engagement with the council, was bound to hand over to them all fees received by him during his tenure of office, but Messrs. Bircham were not aware of this arrangement. Jones did not account for these fees, and retained for his own use the amount of the cheque cashed by him for £116 13s., concealing the fact that he had received it. Work upon agency terms is well known, and payments made in respect of it cannot be correctly described as "commission." Work upon such terms is very common as between solicitors, and has prevailed extensively as between Parliamentary agents and solicitors. One of the recommendations of a Joint Committee of both Houses in 1876 was that such division of fees as between Parliamentary agents and solicitors should be prohibited. Debates took place in both Houses upon this question on July 28th and August 2nd, 1876. There was then, and always has been, a great division of opinion on this subject, and no action was taken on the Report of 1876. The question of the propriety of such agency terms in the case of Parliamentary agents is now under the consideration of the authorities of both Houses.
  MR. BENN: May I ask whether the Holborn Borough Council were aware of these payments from Messrs. Bircham to Jones?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I suppose the town council knew nothing of the fact; but for eighteen years similar arrangements as to agency terms had existed. I have just said that these payments were concealed by Jones from the council.
  MR. BENN: Jones had not been town clerk for eighteen years; and when he was appointed quite a different set of circumstances arose, of which Messrs. Bircham were fully aware.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The difference is not of the slightest importance. Before the arrangements with the borough council, Jones was clerk for the St. Giles's Board, and then he employed Messrs. Bircham. When the St. Giles's Board ceased to exist, Jones became town clerk of the Holborn Borough Council, and still employed Messrs. Bircham on the same terms.
  MR. BENN: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any objection to placing on the Table of the House the cross-examination of Messrs. Bircham which took place at this inquiry?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: It is open to any hon. Member to look at it.

  Rates on Government Property.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that if the basis of the present assessment of the Houses of Parliament, viz.: £40,000, were amended to accord with the basis of the assessment of the Carlton Club, it would be £105,000, and of the National Liberal Club, £122,000; and whether, in view of the rising rates in London, he will take steps to ensure Government property bearing its proper share of rating.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The valuation of the Houses of Parliament was specifically
  290
  mentioned in the Treasury Minute of February 7th, 1896, which contained the following passage—"The Houses of Parliament have hitherto been exempt from contributions (except as regards the residential portion) on the ground of being a Royal Palace. My Lords regard this as a case in which some contribution may be allowed, but the rules for the assessment of private property are not applicable, and they therefore sanction the payment of a moderate contribution to be fixed with due regard to the peculiar character of the property." Having regard to the peculiar character of the property, the contribution which is based on a rateable value of £40,000 is, in the opinion of the Treasury, a reasonable one.
  MR. BENN: May I ask whether in view of the peculiar character of the rating burdens in London the hon. Gentleman will recommend an increase in the Government contribution?
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that intimation was given that a Committee might be appointed to consider the whole subject of the rating of Government property, including the Palace of Westminster. Is there still a willingness to appoint that Committee?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The matter was very carefully investigated by the official responsible for the Treasury in conjunction with the local authority, and the figure was agreed upon as reasonable. I can hold out no hope that the matter will be brought forward again. In reply to the hon. Member for Islington the Question is one which should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If such an intimation were given, and if there is any strong feeling on the subject, no doubt a Committee might be appointed.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Is it not a fact that this payment of rates on Government property accounts for £500,000 increase in the Civil Service Estimates in the last few years.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Yes, Sir.
  MR. BENN: The investigation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred took place as far back as 1896, and in view of the recent rise in the rates I submit another revision is necessary.

  Customs Watchers.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what, if any, concessions he is prepared to make in answer to the petition of the Customs watchers.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I have this matter still under my consideration.
  MR. CAUSTON: This question has now been under consideration a very long time. I will repeat the Question again next Monday.

  Merioneth Education Difficulty.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state the grounds upon which the whole of the education grants payable to the local education authority of Merionethshire, in the months of March and April last, have been withheld; and for how long it is proposed to withhold such grants.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): No March grants have been withheld; all grants which normally matured for payment during the financial year 1904–5 have been paid. The instalments of fee grant due in April last have been paid, less the sums deducted for expenses properly incurred by managers, and for which provision should have been made by the local education authority during the period from 30th September 1903, to 30th October 1904. No annual grants fall due for payment, as regards Merioneth schools, during the month of April owing to the incidence of the school years. The aid grant under Section 10 of the Act of 1902 is paid in respect of the financial year, or rather for so much of it as a school is open. It may be paid by instalments in advance from April 1st onwards, and the Board are now considering what payments they may
  292
  properly make in respect of the county of Merioneth.

  Names and Qualifications of Inspectors in the Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many agricultural inspectors are employed by the Irish Department of Agriculture, what are their names, what are the qualifications of those officials for their present duties, and what was their occupation before they received the appointment of agricultural inspectors.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Detailed information in these matters will be printed with to-night's Votes.

  Trinity College Estates.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the sale of certain estates in the county of Kildare has been delayed and hampered owing to ignorance on the part of the parties as to the terms upon which the Trustees of Trinity College, Dublin, are willing to sell the head rents of the same; can he say whether the Trinity College Estates Commission appointed to inquire into the sale of the Trinity College estates has yet reported; and whether it will deal with the question of the terms on which such head rents will be sold.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have no information to the effect stated in the first part of the Question. The estates referred to have not come before the Estates Commissioners. As to the remainder of the Question, I would ask the hon. Member to await the Report of the Trinity College Commission, which has been received and will shortly be laid on the Table.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sale of certain estates in county Kildare cannot be completed until the Report has been received?
  MR. WALTER LONG: There will be no delay in laying the Report.

  Bingham Estate, County Mayo.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieuenant of Ireland whether, before authorising the employment of a special police force to carry out the eviction of Antony Loftus on the Bingham Estate, at Doolough, Belmullet, county mayo, on April 26th last, he had made himself acquainted with the facts of he case; whether he is aware that the andlord had given time to the tenant for he payment of the one-and-a-half year's rent due, together with the costs, till May 12th; that the tenant had only just been supplied with seed potatoes by the local board of guardians in consequence of the failure of his crop the previous year; and that the full amount due was tendered to the sheriff immediately before; the eviction took place, and was refused; and will he say whether any negotiations for the sale of this property passed between the Estates Commission or the Congested Districts Board and the landlord; and, if not, will he suggest to the Congested Districts Board the advisability of opening negotiations with the landlord, with the object of purchasing this property and restoring the evicted tenant to his former status thereon.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This eviction was carried out by the sheriff, for whose protection and upon whose requisition, a force of four police attended in the, ordinary and necessary discharge of their duty. The Executive have no power to refuse such protection. I have no information as to the facts of the case. I understand that on March 7th the tenant received a supply of seed potatoes, as stated. So far as the police are aware, the amount due was not tendered to the sheriff. No negotiations for the sale of this property have passed between the landlord and the Estates Commissioners or Congested Districts Board. The Board are prepared to consider any offer which may be made to them.

  Lord Longford's Estate, Westmeath.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether it is on his instructions that the Estates Commissioners are acting in
  294
  peremptorily requiring the tenants on Lord Longford's Estate, in Westmeath, to sign agreements to purchase their holdings not at the value of the landlord's interest in those holdings, but in excess of the joint value of the landlord's and tenants' interest added together, and threatening penalties upon those tenants if they refuse to sign such agreements within a week.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The estate is being sold by direct agreement between the landlord and tenants. One tenant refused to purchase on the same terms as the other tenants. The inspector reported that this refusal was unreasonable, and the tenant was accordingly informed that unless he should agree to buy his holding would be omitted from the estate to be sold.

  Bligh Estate, County Meath.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of Mr O'Keefe. On the Bligh Estate county Meath, and other cases which have been brought under the notice of the Estates Commissioners, pressure by writs and other contrivances has been applied to tenants for the purpose of compelling them to sign agreements to purchase at prices in excess of the entire value of their holdings, including the landlord's interest and their own; and whether he will instruct the Estates Commissioners to have the landlord's interest in all holdings so affected valued irrespective of any agreements signed under duress, as a guarantee that the land so affected would be sufficient security for the moneys advanced by the state.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The application for sale includes the holding of Mr. P. O'Keefe, who, it is stated refuses to Purchase, and the vendor has asked that the holding be excluded from the sale. Before deciding the matter, the Commissioners will through their inspector, inquire as to the reasonableness of Mr. O'Keefe's refusal to buy. If any tenant has been forced by duress to enter into any agreement to purchase he has a cheap and easy method under Section

  295
  10 of the Act of 1885 of having the agreement revoked. If he does not take that course the sale of the holding must be dealt with under the ordinary practice.

  Irish Education—Rule 127 (b).
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Minutes of all meetings of the Commissioners of National Education at which Rule 127 (b) was considered.
  MR. WALTER LONG: This question will be considered by the Commissioners at their next meeting, on the 23rd instant.

  Cavan School Teacher's Salary.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say on what date the claim of the principal teacher of school, Roll No. 11,041, Circuit 9B, county Cavan, to an increment of good-service salary was made; and whether any unsatisfactory report was made upon the school during the triennial period; and, if so, on what date.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The claim was made on April 15th, 1904. An unsatisfactory report had been made on July 14th, 1903. The claim is now being reconsidered in connection with a recent representation received from the manager on behalf of the teacher.

  Domiciliary Visits by Irish Police at Athenry.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the neighbourhood of Athenry the police have been in the habit of visiting the houses of the people at night, forcing the people to get out of bed to be inspected and interrogated; and will he say by what authority such domiciliary visits are carried out.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The police have visited certain houses in the district of Athenry for the purpose of obtaining information in respect to the prevention and detection of crime. This i a fundamental duty of the police
  296
  which, as peace officers, they are bound to discharge. There is not the smallest foundation for the suggestion that they have forced people to get out of bed to be inspected and interrogated. The visits of the police were not made at times when the inmates of houses were in bed, and they have always been careful not to cause inconvenience in any way to the persons visited.
  MR. DILLON: My information is that the people were compelled to get out of bed.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have no information as to the precise hours, but I am informed that the visits were not made at times at which the people ought to be in bed.
  MR. DILLON: What was the hour? By what right do the police insist upon entering people's houses without warrant?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I will endeavour to ascertain whether there is any further information as to the hour at which these proceedings were taken.

  Colonel Dopping Hepenstall's Derrycassan Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any negotiations have yet been set on foot or opened with Colonel Dopping Hepen-stall for the purchase of his estate at Derrycassan by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, whether the applications of the thirteen evicted tenants on this estate for restoration to their former or equivalent holdings will be favourably considered.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No proceedings for the sale of this estate have yet been instituted before the Commissioners.

  Evicted Tenant's Holding on the King Harman Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Estates Commissioners propose to admit William Fox, an evicted tenant's son on the King Harman (county

  297
  Longford) Estate, to the possession of that part of his father's former holding which they have decided to allow him to purchase under the Land Act of 1903.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners are awaiting the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on certain legal points which have been raised, before deciding whether they will make an advance in this case.

  Irish Police and Witness Summonses.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a recent petty sessions Court, held at Longford, the county inspector of police there, Mr. Henry R. M'Dermott, refused to obey a witness summons issued by order of the Court, and duly served upon him with the usual viaticum; whether, before refusing to obey the summons, Mr. M'Dermott took the advice of the law officers of the Crown or the Constabulary authorities; and whether the police code provides any special exemption in the case of police officers any more than in that of other persons for such obedience.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The county inspector did not attend, because, owing to an informality in the proceedings, it had been decided to withdraw the case in which he was summoned as a witness. He explained the reasons for his absence to the magistrates, who did not deem his attendance necessary. The county inspector did not consult either the law officers or the Constabulary authorities. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Did not the inspector himself decide that the proceedings were not in order, so that he might evade the summons?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Ireland and the Income-Tax.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the proportion which the income-tax assessment on which taxes were contributed by Ireland bears to that
  298
  of Great Britain, averaged for the last five years available.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The percentage of income-tax contributed by Ireland, as compared with that contributed by Great Britain, is, after making the necessary adjustments in accordance with the practice followed in preparing "Financial Relations" Returns, as follows:—

  Ireland.

  Great Britain.

  1899—1900

  3·77

  96·23

  1900—1901

  3·54

  96·46

  1901—1902

  3·32

  96·68

  1902—1903

  3·31

  96·69

  1903—1904

  3·73

  96·27

  MR. O'MARA: Ought not these to be the figures on which the taxation is levied, seeing that they represent the taxable capacity of the two countries?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish Trade Statistics.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what proportion the total trade imports and exports of Ireland bears to that of England as suggested by Article 7 of the Act of Union, 1800.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated last year, in answer to the hon. Member for West Islington, no machinery exists for collecting complete statistics of goods removed from port to port within the United Kindom, and, in the absence of the requisite data, the proportion between Ireland and England cannot be stated.
  MR. O'MARAwas understood to say that according to the Act of Union these statistics were to be issued every twenty years, and that the right hon. Gentleman was infringing the Act by not issuing them.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I can not give figures which are not available

  Lough Neagh Drainage.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will, before the forthcoming

  299
  debate on arterial drainage, cause to be circulated amongst the Parliamentary Papers the instructions to, and other correspondence with, Sir William Binnie, who has been commissioned to report on the Lough Neagh drainage question.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I have not seen the correspondence referred to, but I understand that my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant has been in communication with Sir Alexander Binnie. Any Questions on that subject should therefore be addressed to him.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the trial of processes last week at the Belfast Quarter Sessions against certain occupiers of flooded lands in Lough Neagh district, in the course of which the drainage trustees admitted that the lands were flooded although the actions were brought for the cost of maintaining them drained; and whether, pending the forthcoming report from Sir William Binnie, he will take steps to suspend further proceedings in such cases.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I am informed that processes have been served and judgment given against several persons liable for the payment of Lough Neagh drainage maintenance rates, but I have no knowledge that any such admissions as that indicated in the Question were made by the trustees. In any case, the Government have no authority to intervene as suggested.
  MR. MACVEAGH: If I send the hon. Member newspaper reports containing these admissions, will he read them?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I shall be delighted to read anything the hon. Member sends me.

  Charge against an Armagh Postman.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on 25th March last a postman called Henderson, of Vernersbridge, county Armagh, discharged a revolver at a boy named Hamill; that Henderson always takes
  300
  part in Orange disturbances in this locality; and whether he will consider the advisability of relieving him of his present public duties.
  LORD STANLEY: I have no information on the subject, but I am making inquiry and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Military Traffic on the Roads near Crosshaven
  MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that complaint has been made to the War Office of the damage done to the roads near Crosshaven, county Cork, by their contractor in the conveyance of material to the Government works by traction engines; and whether, seeing that Cross-haven is a health resort, and in view of the present condition of the roads, orders will be given to have them immediately put in proper repair.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Orders have already been given for the repair of the roads at Crosshaven which have been damaged, and these repairs are already well advanced.
  MR. CREAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman hurry up the contractors? At the rate they are going on at present the season will be over before the roads are repaired.

  Cavan Army Pensioner.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will inquire into the case of James Nolan, of Cavan, No. 241. Army pensioner, who is in a state of destitution; and, seeing that this man has had eleven and a-half years foreign service and was discharged on account of disease contracted whilst on active service, will his present condition be alleviated by the Government.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This man served for eleven years and three months, of which nine years one month were spent abroad. He was discharged in 1869 for phthisis and epilepsy, and was granted 6d. a day pension, the maximum rate permissible under the regulations. The

  301
  Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital have reconsidered his case, but state that he cannot be awarded any increase of pension.

  Proclaimed Meeting in Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a public meeting held at Cappatagle, county Galway, on Sunday the 7th instant, the Member for that Division, while addressing his constituents, was dragged and pulled about by the police; and whether they were authorised to do so without serving him with a copy of the proclamation or giving him any notice that the meeting was proclaimed before he commenced to address his constituents.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The proclamation in the case of this meeting was issued on the 6th May. Copies of it were extensively placarded in the districts and served on the promoters and many other persons likely to attend the meeting. An unsuccessful attempt was made to serve a copy upon the hon. Member at Woodford. On the following day he endeavoured to address a meeting, notwithstanding the proclamation, which was known to everyone in the locality. The county inspector, I believe, handed him a copy, and, according to a newspaper report which I have seen, the hon. Member "tore the copy and threw the fragments on the road." The police were authorised to prevent any meeting, and in carrying out their instructions no violence whatever was used towards the hon. Member.
  MR. DILLON: Are we to understand that it is lawful for the police in Ireland to seize a Member of this House and drag him about, using violence when no resistance is offered?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed that no violence was used. If the police had instructions to prevent the meeting, their duty was obviously to prevent it.
  MR. ROCHE: As the Member for the Division, may I be permitted to state that I was collared by two policemen——
  MR. T. L. CORBETTrose, as if to a point of order, his rising being followed by loud and continued cries of "Sit down," "Order," and "Name" from the Nationalist Benches.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERintervened, and in response to Nationalist cries of "A personal explanation," said: The hon. Member must put his personal explanation in the shape of a Question.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: On the point of order, may I ask whether, where an Answer such as that of the right hon. Gentleman is given, directly contravening the statement of an hon. Member as to his own action in his own constituency, it is not the invariable practice of the House to allow the hon. Member to make a personal explanation?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will postpone his explanation to the conclusion of Questions, I have no doubt that the House will listen to him. There are a number of Questions on the Paper still to be answered, and it would be most unfair to shut them out by the hon. Member's personal explanation.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Was a copy of the proclamation served on the hon. Member for East Galway previous to the meeting or after the hon. Member had been dragged along the road by the police?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am told that every effort was made to serve the hon. Member before the meeting; and I am also informed that before the meeting took place the proclamation was visible in that part of the district. Whether the police were successful or not in serving the proclamation is not a matter of importance, because, as hon. Members know, the police have power to prevent a meeting from being held, whether it has been proclaimed or not.

  The Aliens Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the declaration of a member of the Cabinet at Bristol that

  303
  the Aliens Bill had been introduced to prevent the displacement of British labour, and his promise not to proceed with the policy of protection in this Parliament, he still intends to go on with the measure.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): We certainly intend to proceed with the Bill; and my right hon. friend tells me that the speech to which reference is made in the Question does not bear the interpretation which the hon. Member puts upon it.

  Escape from Fire.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the importance of facilities for escape from fire, as disclosed in the evidence at the recent inquiry into the causes of the telephone fire at Mansion House Chambers and Oxford Court, Cannon Street, can he see his way to facilitate legislation on the lines outlined in the City of London (Means of Escape from Fire) Bill now before Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Home Secretary has consented to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the subject, as that is the best way of dealing with it.

  A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. ROCHEsaid he desired to make a personal explanation as to what had occurred in relation to the proclaimed meeting in his constituency. On the 7th inst., when he was addressing his constituents, the district inspector ordered the police to drag him down immediately. Two of them, acting on the orders of the district inspector, caught him, one on each side, and dragged him to the road. Not satisfied with that, they dragged him along the road for at least fifty yards or more. He repeatedly asked them to let him go and not drag him in that manner, and he demanded what authority they had for doing so. He called for the county inspector and asked him what right these people had to insult him in this fashion and drag him about, and he requested him to direct them to let go of
  304
  him. The county inspector did direct them, and they immediately let go of him. After that incident the proclamation was served upon him, and naturally in the circumstances he gave vent to his feelings and tore it up. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had read the account of these proceedings in the Press. He challenged him to stand up there and deny that in that report the statement was made that the hon. Member for the Division had been assaulted by the police. [At this stage there were loud NATIONALIST cries of "Long."]
  MR. CHURCHILL: On a point of order, Sir, the House having listened to the personal explanation of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, are we not entitled to hear the personal explanation of the Chief Secretary on the new situation created by the hon. Member's statement?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There can be no debate or Answer upon a personal explanation. By the leave of the House the hon. Member made a personal explanation, and the House accepts it. It would be a most improper thing to contradict the hon. Member.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Somebody is a liar. Who is it?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a most improper observation.
  MR. DILLON: On the point of order, Sir, when a Minister or any Member of the House makes a personal statement in reference to any hon. Member, and when that hon. Member of his own knowledge contradicts that statement, is it not customary in this House for the Gentleman who originally made the statement to withdraw?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have no recollection of a personal explanation being debated or contradicted in any way. [An HON. MEMBER: Accepted.] The House at once accepts the explanation made by the hon. Member.
  MR. CHURCHILL: On a point of order, Sir, I understand that you would

  305
  not refuse to the right hon. Gentleman the right to make a personal explanation if he should desire to do so, and if the House did not desire to put any impediment in his way.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman is anxious also to make a personal explanation, and the House is ready to listen to him, of course I shall not interfere. All that I am concerned to do, as for the moment the guardian of the rules of the House, is to protect the House against a debate being raised.
  MR. WALTER LONG: There is no personal explanation to be made, so far as I am concerned. In answer to the Question, I stated the information I had received, which included a statement that no personal violence had been used. The hon. Gentleman has made his statement, which, of course, I accept, as everybody else accepts in this House any statement made by an hon. Member on a matter in his own personal knowledge. In reference to the hon. Member's Question to me as to what appeared in the Press, I think he misunderstood me. I only referred to a quotation which appeared in the newspapers, and in regard to the general account that I gave, I gave what I had received from the police, who were responsible for what took place. I submit to the House that I have no personal explanation to make.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the declaration by the Board of Education of the default of the county of Merioneth under the provisions of the Defaulting Authorities Act.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This seems to be the first occasion on which the matter has been brought to the attention of the House, and therefore I think it may fairly be considered one of urgent public importance. But I think it necessary to enter a caveat that, in case of similar Motions being brought forward
  306
  in relation to other counties, they can hardly be considered as proper ground for adjournment Motions.
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,
  The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until this Evening's Sitting.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill: Mr. Charles Craig; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Seymour Ormsby-Gore.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  VALUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To make provision with respect to a Revision under the Irish Valuation Acts in case of a Revaluation under Section 65 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 217.]
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To regulate and control Sunday Trading in Scotland," presented by Mr. Cameron Corbett; supported by Mr. Hunter Craig, Sir Mark Stewart, and Mr. John Wilson (Glasgow); to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 218.]

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.
  "To alter the age of Exemption from Attendance at School," presented by Mr. Yoxall; supported by Mr. Crooks,

  307
  Sir John Gorst, Mr. Corrie Grant, Mr. Ernest Gray, Mr. Alfred Hutton, Mr. Brynmor Jones, and Dr. Macnamara; to be read a second time upon Monday, 29th May, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

  ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL.
  "To provide for the Registration of Architects," presented by Mr. Atherley-Jones; supported by Sir William Coddington, Mr. Wallace, and Sir Christopher Furness; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 25th May, and to be printed. [Bill 220.]
  SALMON FISHERY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts, 1861 to 1892," presented by Mr. W. H. Grenfell; supported by Sir Herbert Maxwell, Sir Henry Seton-Karr, and Mr. Charles Hobhouse; to be read a second time upon Monday, 29th May, and to be printed. [Bill 221.]

  FINANCE BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CLANCYsaid he regretted they had not the advantage of having before them on that occasion the usual Financial Relations Return, on the basis of which previous discussions on that subject had been carried on. He did not, however, propose to suggest that the Government were to blame in that matter, because he admitted that the Return had on previous occasions been moved for by a private Member, and he did not know that any Member had moved for it up to the present time that session. Therefore, he made no complaint of the fact that the Return had not been issued, nor, indeed, was he inclined to regret that fact. It was extremely doubtful whether that particular Return with which they were annually presented by the author-
  308
  ities at the Treasury did not do more harm than good. In his experience he had found that the basis on which the Return was made was being continually altered and new principles were being introduced from time to time. Several years ago the Treasury—in the time of Mr. Gladstone—discovered that there were very serious errors in the Return, and, accordingly, it had to be revised and made up on different lines. The latest error had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who last year said that a new principle of collating certain items in the Return would have to be adopted. So long as they did not know beforehand the principles on which the Returns were to be based, he for one, objected to allowing the defendant in the case to prepare the evidence on which the verdict was to be given. In the next place he was afraid that the form in which the Return was at present framed, and in which it had been framed in the past, justified the suggestion that it perpetuated misrepresentations and fallacies. The form in which they now received it also seemed to him calculated to perpetuate those evils to which he would allude later on. However that might be, passing from the fact that they had no Return of the usual kind this year before them for the purpose of that debate, it was obvious it was not so necessary now as on previous occasions. For that the reason was clear. It was that the changes made in the Budget of this year were very few and trifling, and, in fact, the only change of any importance which would affect the general Return on the question they were discussing had been the reduction in the duty on tea. He believed that no other material change had been made since last year, and he thought it might be taken for granted that the figures which were available for last year, therefore, were practically sufficient for the purposes of the present debate.
  He did not propose to occupy the time of the House for more than a brief period that evening. The Amendment said that the Bill did not contain proposals for effectually remedying their grievance in regard to unjust financial

  309
  treatment. In that respect the Amendment was literally true, and he would at once put it to the House that, if there were an injustice, it was not corrected in the Budget of this year. The real question was whether an injustice did exist. He did not think there could be any necessity to go into that matter to the extent to which they had done in previous years. To his mind every debate on the subject for several years past had not only been practically one-sided; but the few persons who had spoken against the Irish demand had given no answers to the arguments in favour of that demand. They had merely repeated the usual shallow parrot phrases which time after time had been demonstrated to have not the slightest possible foundation. Last year the light hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer treated them in a rather cavalier manner, considering the great importance of the subject. He contented himself with making two answers, and he did not think he would be misrepresenting the speech of the right hon. Gentleman when he said that those two answers were, broadly speaking, as follows:— In the first place, he asked the familiar question, what remedy did they propose? It was apparently in vain to tell him, as Chancellors of the Exchequer had been told on many occasions, that the Irish Members had not the power themselves to apply a remedy, and therefore the responsibility did not rest with them to discover the proper remedy. It was a very easy thing for the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors to say, "What remedy have you to propose?" but if they had attempted to put one forward it would have been equally easy for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise and reject it, and there upon he presumed the whole question would have been shelved, at any rate by many of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters. He was even inclined to think that that suggestion was not put forward in a bona fide manner. Did anyone believe that the proposed remedies would be accepted? Did anyone in his senses imagine that any number of Irish Members in that House who had considered the matter carefully and in a moderate spirit, would have their opinion
  310
  taken into account for five minutes if any Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to disagree with them? He confessed he did not.
  Next the right hon. Gentleman gave them an answer with which they were equally familiar, and that was to ask what grievance had they when their proportionate contribution to the Empire was steadily going down. He despaired when he listened to replies of that nature, because it had been pointed out time after time how absurd such a suggestion was. Last year they were able to quote in proof of their contention a statement by the right hon. Gentleman's fellow Minister who had now ceased to hold office, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, who had entirely taken their view of the case, viz., that when taxation went up all over Great Britain and Ireland as a whole, and when one of these two divisions of the Kingdom decreased in every element of wealth, while the other advanced by leaps and bounds in the opposite direction, the contribution of the weaker, though it absolutely increased, must necessarily get less in proportion. This seemed to be obvious, but in this matter it often happened that the more obvious the truth was the less it was realised by those who had authority, and he presumed that the right ion. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would continue to be blind to that truth even this session.
  The real point for them to consider was whether their contribution was actually going up or absolutely going down, and he had some figures to submit to them on that point. For ten years before 1900 it was, on an average, under £2,000,000, it was now going up to £3,000,000. What a contrast was there between the promise and the performance; between the promise made at the time of the Union, and the performance of to-day. At the time of the Union their taxation altogether amounted to £2,500,000 a year, and Lord Castle-reagh in his speeches in the Irish House of Commons recommended the Union to the Irish people on the grounds that there would be no augmentation of the debt, and no increase of taxation

  311
  But their total contribution had gone up, their actual payments to the Treasury had gone up to £12,000,000 in one hundred years. Let him say, before he went any further, that he, for one, believed that the contributions as set down in the Treasury Return were far short of the figure at which they ought to stand. Some sessions ago the then Chancellor of the Exchequer the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when he was making a somewhat similar comment, suggested that he was attacking certain Treasury officials. He was doing nothing of the kind; he was simply attacking their masters, who directed them to make the Return on certain lines. He said now frankly his belief was that this was done with the express purpose of showing that they were not paying as much to the Empire as they actually were contributing. There were in the Return two columns showing the revenue extracted from Ireland, one was headed, "Revenue collected in Ireland," the other "the true revenue." He thought Mr. Gladstone was right when in 1886, in the debate on the Home Rule Bill, he admitted that in justice and fairness the revenue collected in Ireland ought to be entirely attributed to Ireland. He really could not understand why it should not be. What was the revenue of France or of Germany? It was the revenue collected in France or in Germany as the case might be. The revenue collected in the British Empire was the revenue of the British Empire. But in the case of Ireland alone, Ireland which, notwithstanding all they might say to the contrary, was divided from them in such a way that it could never be part of the Empire in the same way as Wiltshire was—in the case of Ireland alone they adopted the device of deducting what was paid by consumers in England, and the invariable result was of course to make out that they paid two millions less than they really did.
  Again, the usual Return utterly misrepresented the expenditure account. The object seemed to be to attribute to Ireland all expenses which could by any possibility be regarded as incurred for Ireland, and to take off England every penny spent in England
  312
  that could by any possibility be said to be collected for Imperial purposes. It was assumed—as if there could be no doubt—that the charge for the Army and Navy was an Imperial one, chargeable to the Empire at large. He could understand the charge for the maintenance of the Army being thus treated, but it was different in the case of the millions upon millions spent upon the construction of ships, guns, and armour-plate. That money was spent in five or six English and Scotch shipbuilding ports and dockyards, it was spent upon English, Scotch, and Welsh workmen, it went into English, Scotch and Welsh pockets, and with it were purchased food and clothing—the necessaries of life—in English, Scotch and Welsh establishments. In what way could that be called Imperial expenditure? It ought to be set down, not to the account of the Empire, but to the account of England, Scotland, and Wales. Look at the way in which the charge for the Constabulary in Ireland was treated. Really it was a strictly Imperial charge, and evidence was given before the Financial Relations Commission to the effect that Mr. Goschen, hard as he was towards Ireland himself, stated that the Constabulary charge amounting to £1,600,000 a year ought to be set down to the account of the Empire, and not to the account of Ireland only. Having regard to these facts the Returns were seriously at fault, and the sooner they were abandoned altogether the better, unless steps were taken by the Government to put them on a proper basis.
  It was absolutely plain, nevertheless, that Ireland was paying too much in proportion to the other parts of the United Kingdom. He had no intention to debate this question at great length. It seemed to him to have been settled for ever by the Royal Commission of 1894. That Commission had been assailed on the ground that it was appointed with a view to the Home Rule Bill, and the proposals made by Mr. Gladstone for the settlement of Ireland. But really he did not see how that was an answer at all. The question was—were the figures presented by that Commission correct or not? and not

  313
  whether they were prepared with the view to this or that scheme of Government policy. The question further was whether from the figures correct deductions were made? It seemed to him on this point that there was no answer at all, and no answer had ever been given. None of the figures given by the Commission had ever been assailed; in fact, he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to get up and point to any single set of figures in the Report of the majority which had been assailed at all.
  The old familiar argument had been used that there could not be financial injustice inflicted on Ireland, because under the present system of taxation every man in the three kingdoms was taxed alike. In the first place, he wanted to safeguard himself by stating, as one who took his stand in this matter on the Act of Union—there were too many Unionists on the other side of the House who seemed to think it obsolete and of no account—that this plea was not pertinent. It was like a piece of evidence which might be offered at a trial, which might be true or might be false, but was ruled out by the Judge because it was not relevant to the issue. What was the use of advancing this plea when the principle of separate treatment for Ireland was embodied in the Act of Union as the only principle on which the taxation of Ireland ought to be regulated? It was embodied again in the Act of 1816, which amalgamated the Exchequers of Ireland and Great Britain. The, Act of 1816 declared that the taxation of Ireland and of Scotland was subject to certain exemptions and abatements. That principle was actually recognised for a great part of the first half of last century by successive British Ministers. In 1842, and again in 1845, Sir Robert Peel refused to extend the income-tax to Ireland on the very ground that Ireland was entitled to exemption from this tax; he did so on account of the enactments of 1800 and 1816. It was nonsense to say that this theory of separate treatment was either new-fangled or wrong. It was recognised in 1864 by a Conservative Administration when they appointed a Committee on the subject. It was recognised by the Chairman of that Committee, Sir Stafford Northcote, who made a remarkable Report, in which he
  314
  said that Ireland was the most heavily taxed and Great Britain the most lightly taxed country in Europe, notwithstanding that both were nominally subject to the same taxation. Sir Stafford North-cote did not repudiate the obligations laid upon British Ministers and British politicians by the Acts of 1800 and 1816, nor did the Government who appointed the Committee. Even so late as 1890 the very work which the Royal Commission was set to do a few years later by Mr. Gladstone, namely, to take account of what way Ireland ought to be separately treated, was entrusted by Mr. Goschen, the Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer, to a Committee, in the reference framed to aid the Committee which was appointed, but never met, to investigate this question. The answer, therefore, that no injustice was done because everybody was taxed alike was not pertinent to the issue. But more than that, it was not true.
  He would take those who urged this argument on their own ground. It was obvious that it could not be true as long as Ireland and Great Britain were dissimilar in circumstances and in resources. He thought he was stating the case as plainly and correctly as possible when he said that a common system of taxation as applied to countries dissimilar in circumstances and resources did not necessarily mean equality of burden. Take the case of rates on property. When a common system was applied to countries dissimilar in circumstances and resources—great properties the rule in the one, small in the other—equal rates on both pressed more heavily on the latter than on the former, because they took away a greater proportion of the surplus income. Surely that was perfectly plain. He would read, for the information of anyone who doubted this, the statement made by Sir Robert Giffen before the Financial Relations Commission—
  "It is not the same thing lo take £2 from the man who has £40 a year, as to take £4 from a man who has £80, or £40 from a man who has £800. The sacrifice is greater upon the man from whom you take £2 out of £40 than it is upon the man from whom you take £40 out of £800, although the proportion is the same."
  In the case of taxes of dutiable commodities the case was absolutely worse

  315
  for they acted without any regard at all to disparity in income. If the poor consumed as much as the rich they paid actually as much as the rich; the poorer country gave up a larger part of its income than the richer, because it had less surplus income. Therefore, he contended that this system, so far from equalising taxation, might, and as a matter of fact did, work the greatest possible injustice to Ireland. Under the system of indiscriminate taxation the man living in Mayfair paid, forsooth, the same as the unfortunate Connaught peasant for his tobacco, though the one had £10,000 a year, while the other had to support himself and his family on ten shillings a week. Yet it was said that no injustice was done to the Connaught peasant. In his opinion the unfortunate peasants in the West of Ireland ought not to be taxed at all. Every frank economist admitted that what ought to be taxed was the surplus income, and that the people must be allowed enough to live on before their taxation began; otherwise they would not live and there would be no taxation at all. What a monstrous thing it was that the unfortunate peasants in the West of Ireland, labourers who on an average earned ten shillings a week, should be put on a par in regard to taxation with the millionaires in Park Lane and Mayfair! But that was the necessary result of so-called equal and indiscriminate taxation; and the reason why it hit Ireland more heavily than England was perfectly obvious, namely, that Ireland contained a vastly larger number of poor than England.
  Again, if the articles selected for taxation were used only in one, or were used in one more generally than in the other, that one country was hit, and the other escaped, though both were nominally liable to the same taxation. That was exactly what had happened in the case of Ireland as compared with Great Britain. From 1853 down to 1860 what was done? The House of Commons selected whisky, which was the national beverage of Ireland, for taxation, and left out beer, which was the national drink of England. There were the same duties on whisky and beer in both, but would any candid man say that they hit the two countries in the same way?
  316
  This equal and indiscriminate taxation argument seemed to be infected with the essential vice that so long as the circumstances of the country on which it was imposed were not taken into account, it ever touched the poor and let the rich get off. The result was—and he thought that this fact ought to be really conclusive as to the injustice of the present system of taxation—that, according to the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answering a Question put to him on the subject of the taxation raised in England, one-half was borne by indirect taxation and one-half by direct taxation; but in Ireland the figures were 72 per cent. from indirect taxation and 27 from direct taxation.
  Well, the general trend of all this was summed up in a passage which he would take the opportunity of reading from the Report of the Financial Relations Commission—he meant the Report signed by the majority of the Commissioners. It was a passage which any candid Englishman ought to be ashamed of. It was as follows—
  "The general effect of the change in fiscal policy has been to abolish nearly all duties on raw material of manufacture and articles of food, and to substitute direct taxation upon income and property, together with duties on a small number of imported articles and on alcoholic drinks. The articles selected for these duties—tobacco, tea, and spirits, are those most largely used by the population of Ireland, while the articles freed from duty were so freed mainly for the benefit of the inhabitants of Great Britain."
  That passage remained on record, and could not be contradicted; and yet the English Government went on piling taxation on Ireland, relying on the assumption that so long as each man paid the same rate of duty on tea, tobacco, and spirits, there could not be any injustice done, in spite of the fact that the one country presented a totally different set of circumstances from the other. He heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister last year declare that, large as was the taxation which this country was called upon to bear in consequence of the South African War, it was better able to bear it than even the taxation of forty years ago. Could anybody pretend that that

  317
  could be said of Ireland? Its population had been reduced by one-half in fifty years, until now it was less than it was at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and only what it was at the time of the Union. He doubted if, in the dominions of the Turk, there could be found a single country of which that could be said. And the Irish people were still going. A Return appeared a few weeks ago, from which it appeared that the emigration of labourers from Ireland, during the first four months of this year, was 1,000 more per month than in the corresponding four months last year. And why did they go? Surely they would not go if they could earn their bread at home. It was because there was no hope of their attaining to prosperity in their native land. Curiously enough, the fact that Ireland was not improving, but, on the contrary, going back, was proved by the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question put to him that very day as to the receipts from the income-tax during the past five or six years. He had not had time to examine the figures very carefully, but it was plain that, notwithstanding the increase in the rate of the income-tax, the actual produce of the tax had decreased. That clearly showed that the resources of Ireland were declining. Now, he really thought that treatment of this kind, and under these circumstances, betrayed a hard-heartedness and callousness which could not be too severely condemned. For his part, he had not words in which he could sufficiently condemn it by the use of Parliamentary language.
  Before he sat down he wanted to mention a fact which he had discovered from the Inland Revenue Returns of last year. The fact concerned the repayment into the local taxation account from the Imperial Exchequer of the proportion of the Excise license duties. Many years ago Mr. Goschen, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a Return showing that the amount given back, proportionate to income, to the three countries, was 80 per cent. to England, 11 per cent. to Scotland, and 9 per cent. to Ireland. He was inclined to think at the time that Ireland was, as usual, being cheated; and he was not
  318
  yet sure that Ireland was not. But Ireland had been treated worse since. The system of repayment had been changed and the three countries got back the produce of certain Excise duties. England got back at the same rate as before; but it turned out that the licences which were selected for that purpose were most fruitful in England and least fruitful in Ireland. The result was that, whereas Ireland was getting 9 per cent. before of what was paid in, she was now, under the revised system, only getting 4½ per cent. instead of 9 per cent. He would like the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain why that should be so.
  There were, he warned the right hon. Gentleman, other Questions to be answered; because, if he was rightly informed, England was getting a great deal too much and Scotland a great deal too little even under the law as it stood. What he had been saying was but the latest chapter—not the last, he supposed—of a disgraceful story more than a century old. One hundred and five years ago one of the fraudulent devices by which it was sought to impose the Union project upon the intellect of Ireland was a series of promises that it would be of vast material benefit to Ireland, inasmuch as, amongst other reasons, Ireland would be equitably taxed. It was to be taxed, according to Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Pitt, in the proportion then prevailing. Then the British taxpayers in Great Britain paid annually about £3 per head, the Irish taxpayers only 10s. The British rate had since declined to £2 Is. per head, while that of Ireland had increased from 10s. to all but £2 per head, and this, too, though in the same time the population and resources of Ireland had both declined, while the population of Great Britain had more than trebled, and her wealth, in all its various forms, had far outstripped that advance. No wonder that Ireland's connection with Great Britain by means of the Union had brought Ireland, not the increase of wealth which was to follow in the wake of the Union, but ever increasing poverty. No wonder that Irish industries had been well nigh extinguished. No wonder that

  319
  its people fled from their own land as from a plague spot. No wonder that the last century witnessed two or three famines and many periods of acute distress. No wonder that many Irishmen, knowing the real causes of those calamities, should think it blasphemy to style them visitations of Providence. No wonder they should be inclined to thinks of some British statesmen as more deserving of such denunciations as those uttered by Cicero of the plunderer of Sicily than was Verres himself. For his own part, he thought less hardly of the direct and brutal suppression of Irish industries 200 years ago than he did of the various indirect, ingenious, underhand, and mean devices by which the same end had been attained in more civilised times. Nor could he view without disgust the expression by British statesmen at the present time of a vicarious repentance for the injustice inflicted by their predecessors who were long since dead, while they seem utterly blind to the equally gross injustice inflicted by themselves.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORformally seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House, having regard to the unjust financial treatment to which Ireland has been for many years subjected, with disastrous results to that country, declines to read a second time this Bill, which contains no proposal for effectually remedying that grievance, and does contain provisions which would continue it."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ELLIOTsaid the mover of the Amendment had denounced the financial relations between Ireland and England. He had talked as if Irishmen were leaving their country as a pest-house, as if everything was failing, the country going down hill; as if there was no prosperity anywhere; as if it were all due to the gross and unjust treatment in financial matters of Ireland by Great Britain. He
  320
  begged to traverse that statement altogether. Every Return showed that Ireland was advancing. Savings Bank balances were increasing, and although the income-tax did not show the rise that it ought to show that was due to the change from big to small proprietors.
  MR. CLANCYretorted that that point was answered last year, when it was argued that the money must be invested, and the income-tax, if not paid out of property, was payable out of dividends.
  MR. ELLIOTmaintained that his point was a good one, and asked where the moneys were now invested. He admitted that the population of Ireland was less now than it was fifty years ago, and he regretted that should be the case, but if he had to choose between seeing Ireland with a population of 10,000,000 of people, living as they used to live, and a smaller population living in a certain degree of comfort, he should assuredly choose the latter. The hon. Member had fallen into the mistake of regarding the whole question of taxation as one between Irishmen and Englishmen, whereas it was one between the rich and the poor man. It was not a geographical question, but rather one between the occupant of a mansion in Mayfair and an inhabitant of the slums of London. The last Returns of 1903—4 showed that whilst Irishmen paid in taxation into the Imperial Exchequer £2 4s., the Englishman paid £3 12s. Hon. Members ought frankly to face the situation. That proportion had been going on year after year, and yet they were told there was an unfair treatment of Ireland by England. Taxes to the amount of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year were raised in England and Scotland on articles from which Ireland was exempt. For instance, there was house duty. A man living in Dublin came over to Liverpool and had to pay a tax which, he had never paid before. Then there was the railway passenger duty, which with other duties falling on Scotland and England, and not on Ireland, amounted to £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year.
  MR. CLANCYpointed out that Ireland's proportion of the £4,000,000 or

  321
  £5,000,000 was so small that it would not pay for costs of collection.
  MR. ELLIOTagreed with that view, but repeated that Ireland escaped duties which had to be paid by England and Scotland.
  MR. CLANCY: Yes, we are saved from paying taxes on armorial bearings. There are none.
  MR. HEMPHILLasked who paid the railway passenger duty in England.
  MR. ELLIOTagreed that the duty was paid by the railway companies, but the money was extracted from the pockets of English taxpayers and not from Irish pockets. In all those exempted taxes amounted to £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, and he put that forward as a point to be considered. The hon. Member had astounded him when he talked about the waste of the revenue, and the injustice in Ireland being called upon to contribute to the Imperial Navy.
  MR. CLANCY: I might have said that, but I did not say it.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid the hon. Member could not deny that the Irish taxpayers were interested in the Imperial Navy inasmuch as they received the benefit of the services of that Navy. They doubtless were perfectly loyal citizens of the United Kingdom, and as such enjoyed the benefits of the Navy and the Army. He therefore failed to see why they should not contribute to the maintenance of the Imperial Forces. He could quite conceive that a proportional system fixing the amount of revenue might be a reasonable view if they were going to recur to the old system of making the United Kingdom a federation of States, but the very basis of the Treaty of Union looked forward to putting an end to a system of proportionate contribution as absolutely unsuited to a state of things where men were citizens of the same State and subject to the same Imperial Government and taxing authority. It seemed to him that as between man and man there was no case whatever for the contention of the hon. Gentleman.
  322
  Let them regard it for a moment from the point of view of the Imperial Exchequer. Was it right that Ireland should contribute to the Imperial Exchequer for anything save Irish expenditure. Surely she ought. She ought to contribute to the Imperial expenditure just as much as England and Scotland had to contribute to it. If the Report of the Royal Commission was carried out and the sum of £2,250,000 or £2,500,000 a year was paid from the Imperial Exchequer to Ireland the result would be that Ireland would contribute nothing to the Imperial Exchequer; but, on the contrary, because at present she only contributed £2,200,000 to the Imperial expenditure outside purely local Irish expenditure. It was of no use to come to an Imperial Assembly like this and suggest that we should subsidise Imperial expenditure in Ireland, because that was what it came to when it was suggested that the Imperial Exchequer should pay a contribution of £2,500,000 to Ireland, which only contributed £2,200,000 to our Imperial expenditure. The most valuable part of the Report of the Royal Commission, which showed great industry and ability on the part of those who framed it, was the recommendations as to what should be done to remedy this state of things. If ever there was a reductio ad absurdum in this world it was those recommendations. One was to take off the taxation of Ireland and put it on to England and Scotland, the second was to alter the duties on the commodities as against the other two countries. If that were done, it would necessitate the revival of the old systam of Custom-houses between Ireland, Scotland, and England, and surround Ireland with a great wall. Did anyone suppose it was possible, even if it was desirable, to go back to such a system?
  MR. O'MARAsaid the system of Custom-houses was only abolished in 1858.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid his point was it was not possible to revive the system, the hon. Gentleman, at all events, would agree that it was highly undesirable.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he certainly did not agree to anything of the sort.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid then the hon. Member would find himself in a minority when they came to vote upon the matter.
  MR. O'MARAsaid so long as he had sat in the House he always had been in a minority.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he had no desire to argue with the hon. Member. All he said was that, first of all, hon. Members opposite had to make out a case of gross injustice, and that, in his opinion, they had failed to do. Coming to the special remedies, he thought it would be quite impossible to revive the system of Custom-houses between Ireland and England; the more communication there was between the two countries, the better for both. When this question was looked into, item by item, they found that Ireland gained considerably by her financial relations with Great Britain. If they locked up the Returns they would find that the postal and telegraphic system in Ireland was run at a loss, which meant that the penny postage and the sixpenny telegraphic system was only rendered possible in Ireland by her interests being bound up with those of a richer country than herself. What was one of the most valuable gifts which the United Kingdom could make to other parts of the Empire which Were poor, as Ireland was, unfortunately? It was the advantage of her credit. And that Ireland had, and enjoyed the full benefit of, quite as much as, if not more than, any other part of the United Kingdom. The great system of loans to the peasantry was only made possible by the credit of Great Britain, end the fact that there was Only one system of taxation. Ireland might have been unjustly treated in the past, but he did not think her grievances were due to any closeness or niggardliness on the part of Great Britain. He denied that the United Kingdom had ever shown, in her relations with Ireland or Scotland, or her Colonies, anything like stinginess. The principles adopted in Ireland were the only principles that could be adapted between man and man, and it was because he believed that those were the only principles that could be adopted towards Ireland that he said
  324
  that when they abrogated those principles and dealt instead with the principle of the financial entity of Great Britain and the financial entity of Ireland that they left the straight and solid path which led to good results. The system suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite might be, and probably was, the best that might be adopted in the case of federated States, but it was quite unsuitable in the case of Ireland and this country. While we remained one people and remained subject to one Imperial taxing authority, and wished to have justice done between man and man, and to base finance on sound financial lines, we must look at the true facts, and must see that Ireland, Scotland, and England, the rich countries and the poor, all got justice. Those were the lines, and the sole lines, upon which we could make any bargain.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had given the House the usual stereotyped argument which ignored all facts and figures. He had heard that kind of argument over and over again. According to the hon. Member they had to ignore everything, the findings of the Royal Commission, the history of the case, and all the facts of recent history. It seemed almost hopeless to address any argument to an otherwise alert mind like that of the hon. Gentleman when he ignored and befogged everything that had been done. Did the hon. Member or any hon. Member opposite mean to revive the exploded fallacy which was published in the Unionist Press when the findings of the Royal Commission were published; namely, that it was the extravagant expenditure which was the justification for the existing taxation. If that were so, if the argument in favour of quoting a figure as a contribution was a just one, all that they would have to do would be to double the number of Judges in Ireland, to increase the numbers of the Constabulary, to make extravagant increases in salaries and so forth all over the place, and the question was solved. But the hon. Member opposite was not alone in that line of argument, because in the debate of last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  325
  bombarded the House with a set of new figures, drawn from nobody knew where, based upon an absolutely fallacious argument, and from that day to this the right hon. Gentleman had done nothing whatever to substantiate the figures he then put forward. The last Treasury Return was one which the Irish people could not accept, and in regard to which the House ought to be sceptical, inasmuch as there were no means of testing it.
  A large portion of the Irish case must depend on the Report of the Royal Commission, which hon. Members opposite desired to discredit because it was appointed in connection with the question of Ireland's contribution in a possible scheme of Home Rule. But the fact that the Commission was appointed ad hoc in reference not to a political issue, but to the financial side of that issue, did not invalidate its testimony or discredit its findings, or, above all, displace the invaluable evidence given by Treasury officials themselves. The figures upon which eleven out of the thirteen Commissioners based their findings were supplied by men of the type of Sir Edward Hamilton and Sir Robert Giffen, and they had never been disproved. The Government did not accept the findings of that Commission, but promised to appoint another body to inquire how the expenditure on Irish local services contrasted with similar expenditure in England and Scotland, and to what exemptions and abatements Ireland might be entitled. Surely that was a recognition of the doctrine of a fiscal entity.
  The figures given by the Treasury last July simply brought the sad story up to date, showing a steady and constant increase in the amount drawn from Ireland, but revealing the alarming anomaly that the more Ireland contributed in tax revenue the smaller was her percentage of the total contribution. That, however, was largely due to the enormous and increasing expenditure of Great Britain to which the Irish people had never given their assent. It was unnecessary to discuss whether or not the South African War was justifiable, he thought it was most unjustifiable; the fact remained that it cost between £200,000,000 and, £300,000,000, of which Ireland had had to bear her share. In
  326
  1893–94 the amount of tax revenue drawn from Great Britain was £75,796,000, and from Ireland £7,568,000, or 7·08 per cent. as compared with Great Britain; six years later the amounts were £117,385,000 and £8,664,000 respectively, or a percentage of 7·38 from Ireland; in 1902–3, Great Britain's contribution was £146,400,000, and Ireland's £10,205,000, or 6·98 per cent., while according to the list published Returns, the amount drawn from Great Britain was £137,184,000 and from Ireland £9,748,000, a percentage of 7·35. Whence, then, did the hon. Member for Durham get his 2·3 per cent?
  MR. ELLIOTsaid the 2·3 would be found on page 19 of Return No. 225.
  MR. FLYNNreplied that the Irish people could not accept the figures of that Return at all, as they were based on a fallacious doctrine long since exploded. The Commission reported that Ireland was over taxed to the extent of £2,500,000 per annum, and until the Treasury appointed another Commission of financial experts and upset the figures upon which that finding was based, the House was bound to accept it. According to the figures he had just given, Irish taxation in ten years had increased by pound;2,500,000, though the percentage of her contribution had fallen by 1·73. According to the income-tax returns for the last financial year, the amount charged in England was £29,554,000, and in Scotland £3,101,000, a total of £32,655,000, while Ireland was charged £1,207,536, representing only 3·7 per cent. Therefore on the most favourable basis of taxation, the utmost that Ireland ought to be called upon to pay was 3·7 per cent. of the revenue. Under Schedule D, which more accurately reflected the resources of the people than the statement as a whole, England was charged£16,828,000, Scotland £2,078,030, and Ireland only £497,000, or 2·63 per cent. of the whole. If 2·63, which approximately represented Ireland's ability as compared with Great Britain, were contrasted with the 7·35 which was extracted from her, the case for over-taxation was disclosed in overwhelming strength and clearness. He hoped the

  327
  Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply, instead of repeating old and exploded fallacies, would give the House something more enlightning and informing than he did last year. Ireland's case was unanswerable, and some serious attempt ought to be made to redress her grievance. He defied hon. Members to name any other country of equal fertility which was losing its population by tens of thousands, whose fields were going out of cultivation, and whose peasantry were flying as from a plague-stricken land. Such a state of things was surely abnormal and alarming; to the Irish people it was sickening and heartbreaking. Over-taxation was one of the causes of the depopulation and impoverishment of Ireland, and steps ought at once to be taken to remedy the financial grievance under which that country laboured.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid it was no use talking about Irish contributions. They had got a United Kingdom, and under that government it was possible to have a system of taxation which would be perfectly fair to the Irish people. He was ready to grant that the existing system of taxation was not fair to the Irish people, but its unfairness was not because they were Irish, but because they were poor, and the same system was equally unfair to poor Scotchmen and Englishmen. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: There is nothing in that.] There was something in it, because it enabled a national grievance to be made out of what was really only a class grievance. Ireland was the poorest part of the United Kingdom, and when they summed up the taxation they found that it was an unreasonable amount. The illustration given by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, of a poor man in Connaught who smoked his pipe contributing more than his fair share as compared with the rich man in Pall Mall who smoked his cigar, was quite true, but it was equally true of poor Englishmen and Scotchmen. As long as they remained a United Kingdom, the only way in which justice could be done was by so regulating the taxation of the whole of the United Kingdom, that the rich classes should pay their fair proportion and the poor should not
  328
  pay more than their fair share. Many of the indirect taxes which were imposed upon commodities were imposed in a way which was very unfair to the poor, and therefore it was unfair to Ireland, and that, he understood, was the argument of the hon. Member for Durham.
  What they required was that indirect taxation should be fairly distributed throughout the United Kingdom. There was an idea that whisky was taxed more than beer, and if that could be proved he should be willing to see that injustice redressed. He thought all hon. Members agreed that at the present moment indirect taxation formed too great a proportion of the revenue raised in the United Kingdom. Twenty years ago, before all these wars and high expenditure upon the Army and Navy, no man could justly be said to be oppressed by indirect taxation, because then no working man paid indirect taxation unless he drank, or smoked, or indulged in that pernicious fluid tea. If he abstained from all those luxuries then he paid nothing at all, and he did not pay much now except in regard to sugar. What the Irish representatives ought to demand was a reduction of indirect taxation and further relief on those articles which were the subject of food and consumption by the Irish people and the poor Scotch and English people. That could only be done by a great reduction in the general expenditure of the country, and after the speech of the Prime Minister he thought they would all be looking forward with some hope towards a very great reduction in their military expenditure. Then they would be able to take the tax off sugar, reduce the tax on tea, and possibly on whisky, and thus the poor Irishman, as a member of the United Kingdom, would obtain an alleviation of the injustice from which he was now suffering, without any disturbance of the present Constitution under which England, Scotland, and Ireland were bound together.
  MR. FIELDsaid that what the Irish Members complained of was that Ireland had been overtaxed since the Union. It was not only a question of the immediate present, but they had also to consider the immense restitution which was due to them from the past.

  329
  At the time of the Union Ireland was perhaps the most lightly-taxed country in Europe, as she was not concerned in foreign wars. Under the terms of the Union it was definitely stipulated that she should be always recognised as a separate taxable entity, to be taxed only in ratio to her resources, with certain exemptions to be allowed. This fact had been proved by the Financial Relations Commission inquiry, and was also further substantiated by the pamphlets and proceedings of the All Ireland Financial Reform League. Therefore he would not trouble the House with details, as the contract terms could not be denied. Under the Act of Union it was distinctly laid down that the Irish and British. Exchequers were to be kept separate until such time as a certain ratio was reached, when the Exchequers might be amalgamated and another system would more conveniently allow the over taxation of Ireland to any extent desired by the English Chancellors. This increase in what was called the National Debt of Ireland was easily managed by the expert financiers of the British Treasury, so that after the expensive Napoleonic wars it was accomplished.
  In order to explain the motives and manipulations which led up to the amalgamation of the Irish and British Exchequers, it was necessary to quote the official figures of the intervening years that elapsed between the Union and amalgamation. On January 5th, 1801, the British debt was £450,504,984, and the annual charge £17,718,134; the Irish debt was £28,545,134, and the annual charge £1,244,463. On January 5th, 1817, after amalgamation, the British debt was £734,527,104, and the annual charge £28,238,416; the Irish debt was then £112,704,514, and the annual charge £4,094,514. This showed whilst the Imperial Government did not double the British debt they quadrupled the Irish debt. By this manipulating amalgamation the Irish debt which in 1801—even after adding the cost of conveying the Union—had been as to the British one to sixteen and a-half, was forced up to bear to the British debt the ratio of one to seven and a-half. It was difficult to understand upon what grounds the Irish people were compelled to share in the liability for this enormous
  330
  National Debt now amounting to £800,000,000. The Irish people were not consulted, and they derived no advantage from foreign wars to which they were generally opposed, and they did not receive any benefit from naval or military expenditure. All that money was spent outside Ireland, where they had not even a receiving depôt, and all that now was mainly utilised to protect the mercantile marine, which reduced the price and demand for Irish produce, and yet they had to pay more than their share to maintain the Navy and Army. Meantime the colonists, who supplied our markets and took our manufactured goods, contributed scarcely any appreciable amount for their defence. Why not ask them to pay their fair share towards the ever-increasing cost of the Army and Navy, and relieve Ireland to the extent of their contribution? He submitted this practical suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Colonies had prospered because they controlled their own finances. India, and Ireland had been plundered and pauperised because the power of the purse remained in the British Parliament. Just as in India, the systematic and continuous policy of over-taxing the Irish people and sending the money outside the country obviously created an insurmountable obstacle to progress and prosperity.
  Men and money were the twin wheels upon which progression proceeded. Irish money was absorbed by investments, and their men were leaving the land of their birth where God intended they should reside, if permitted by equitable laws and paternal administration. About the period of the Union the population of Ireland to that of Great Britain was as two was to five. Now it was not much over one-ninth. England was jealous of the prosperity of Ireland under a native Parliament even though it was composed of Protestants. But when the amalgamation of the Exchequers was proposed and passed, certain safeguards were inserted, and officials to look after Irish interests were to be appointed. He would quote from Statutes at Large, 56 George III., 1816; Vol. 56, an Act which was passed on July

  331
  1st. It contained the following provisions—
  "Consolidated Funds of Great Britain and Ireland shall become one Consolidated Fund; offices of Treasurer of Great Britain and Ireland shall be united, and may be executed by Commissioners; Vice-Treasurer for Ireland to have salary of £2,000—with power to appoint deputy; money shall be issued out of the Treasury of Ireland on the warrant of the Lord-Lientenant, signed by the Vice-Treasurer and Auditor-General of His Majesty's Exchequer of Ireland; quarterly accounts of Consolidated Fund in Great Britain and Ireland shall be transmitted from each country to the other and deposited in the several Exchequers; two additional Commissioners of the Treasury to be appointed for Irish business; annual account to be laid before Parliament by the Vice-Treasurer; books and records of Irish Treasury to remain with Vice-Treasurer."
  Would the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chief Secretary enlighten the House as to what had been done regarding those provisions. One never heard of anything but the British Treasury. Two short amending Acts were passed in 1817, but none of the main provisions were changed, and, so far as he could learn, the exemptions made under the Act of Union had been disallowed, and the regulations and safeguards provided by the Act of 1816 had been disregarded. Ireland had been involved in the payment of tremendous Imperial taxations far in excess of the proportions laid down by Pitt and Castlereagh, who foretold increased trade and prosperity, but Ireland had not participated in her share of the Imperial expenditure.
  Of course they would be told about grants. Let an international account be prepared showing overtaxation and grants. The Union ratio was entirely ignored by Mr. Gladstone in his 1853 Budget. Although there was a surplus he levied income-tax in Ireland, nominally for a short period, to repay an amount lent to meet famine exigencies. He did this in opposition to the opinion of Sir Robert Peel and other eminent English Chancellors, who maintained that Ireland was too poor to pay income-tax. Although the amount lent had been repaid many times over, restitution had not been given by an equivalent reduction. On the contrary, the taxation was still rising. He was not arguing for the remission of income-tax in Ireland, but he did advocate the necessity of introducing a fair
  332
  system of graduated assessments—and also the need of reform in the existing mode of valuations, assessment, and collection in Ireland, where the income-tax payers, especially business and professional men, were often exorbitantly assessed, and consequently harassed, whilst the owner of land values, who did nothing, practically escaped taxation. Mr. Gladstone enormously increased the burden of taxation in Ireland before the country had recovered from the evil effects of the terrible famine, and just at the time that what was falsely called free trade, but which in reality was a system of free imports, was coming into operation and telling against Ireland. This system not alone reduced the value of Irish agricultural produce generally, but it gradually helped to deteriorate the climate and make it more humid, so that the yield of crops or live stock was not so good as formerly. Some hon. Members might not quite appreciate the connection between wet seasons and free imports. But it was recognised by meteorologists that if a country was not properly drained, was nearly all under grass, especially without a due clothing of wood, such a grassy area induced atmospheric moisture, and often rain, and it must be acknowledged that as a rule a cultivated country enjoyed a drier climate. However, let them get away from atmospheric influence, and come to the figures.
  He would briefly put the case from the beginning. The King's revenue, or what was now termed Imperial taxation, was in the fourteenth century £11,000 per annum. This snowball had in the roll of ages increased to an avalanche of nearly £11,000,000. He would briefly trace its growth. In the seventeenth century, mainly by subsidies, £300,000; eighteenth century, mainly by subsidies, £650,000; 1801, beginning of nineteenth century, Union, £1,244,000; 1817, amalgamation, Exchequer, £4,004,514; 1829, amalgamation Exchequer, £4,460,000. In the Victorian era the figures were—1837, taxation, £5,175,000; population, 8,024,000; per head, 12s. l1d.; 1901, taxation, £9,505,000; population, 4,456,546; per head, 43s. In the present King's reign the figures were—1905, taxation, £10,200,000; population, 4,420,000; per

  333
  head, 44s. Since 1837 the population that was the productive factor of taxation had been reduced by nearly one-half, whilst the taxation per head had been almost quadrupled. Sometimes it was alleged by sophistical surface observers that Ireland was over-populated. Let him compare the density of population per square mile in European countries. England, 505; Scotland, 135; Ireland, 132 (Scotland did not contain anything like the area of arable land that Ireland did); France, 320; Germany, 233; Italy, 260; Switzerland, a mountainous land, 190; Holland, 350; Belgium, 530, more than four times the population per square mile, and in addition Ireland had been depopulated to make room for cattle. Yet Belgium carried three times as many beasts per acre as Ireland, although Ireland had a richer soil. The difference was in the home government.
  In Ireland emigration continued, and the result was that the marriage and birth rate had decreased far below those of any other civilised country. The death rate was increasing, and the proportion of the children and aged to population had increased to such an extent that even if emigration were stayed the future of the Irish race was threatened. The ratio of infirm and insane was far greater than that in any other country in the world. The land was going out of tillage, and the number of persons in receipt of pauper relief was growing greater, although the population was diminished. So that the increasing burden of taxation had to be borne by a smaller number of producers, who were also weighted with heavy local rates, which amounted to over £4,000,000 sterling per annum. He submitted that produce was the measure of national wealth, and further, that the wealth of a nation consisted in its natural products, the skill and number of its inhabitants, and the possession of transit facilities. Great Britain, as they were told by geologists, owing to the displacements of the glacial period, had more iron and coal and consequently manufactures than Ireland. England had more skill, as technical education was unknown in Ireland until recently. The population of England had trebled; of Ireland it had been reduced almost one-half.
  334
  England had ten times more shipping than all the rest of the world, and competitive railways; in Ireland they had neither, yet from the poverty-stricken population of Ireland upon whom indirect taxation fell most heavily the English Government extorted 72 per cent. of indirect taxation, whilst in Great Britain it averaged only about 27 per cent.
  Measured by income-tax returns Great Britain, especially England, was rich beyond all proportion as compared with Ireland. As the payment of income-tax was dependent on valuation, let him point out here that in England and Scotland there was a local authority assessment committee co-operating with the Government official. In Ireland there was a Valuation Commissioner appointed by the Crown, altogether beyond the influence of the taxpayer. If Ireland was to be revalued under this authority probably £1,000,000 a year would be added to the overtaxation of Ireland. Although identity of taxation had now proved to be unjust in application, yet identity of method should be followed under what was called Union constitutional Government. It was admitted that Great Britain drew a yearly profit of over £2,000,000 per annum from Ireland. Yet, notwithstanding the verdict of the Financial Resolutions Commission that they were over-taxed by nearly £3,000,000 sterling per annum, still the over-laxation tribute was even more rigorously exacted, and when the complaint was annually brought on for discussion they received only flippant replies and taunts about grants—which were mainly taken from Irish money. Why, everything in Ireland was starved and stunted from the want of a paternal yet economic Government. Money was wasted on soldiers who got their supplies outside Ireland. It was the same with officials, Constabulary, policemen, coercion proceeding from law-officers, and secret service. This House would grant many thousands of pounds for a denominational University for the Soudanese and refuse a necessary grant for the establishment of a University for those who constituted the majority of the Irish people. At the same time arterial drainage and fisheries, re-afforesting, and cheap transit, harbours, canals—all the factors of intellectual and commercial prosperity—were neglected

  335
  outside the work done by the Congested Districts Board or Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.
  Let it be granted that Ireland was naturally wealthy in agricultural resources, and under fair economic conditions her people would live in plenty and have ample provision during ordinary seasons against any probable diminution of her productive output in unfavourable years. But she was governed and controlled by a Power that financially and industrially absorbed her earnings in an insidious fashion by the financial drainage of overtaxation. It had been said that Ireland was drained of everything except water by England. A simple analogy would explain the situation. Suppose a farm of land which was naturally very fertile, if its produce was continually exported and consumed abroad, with, nothing returning to its soil, in due course of time that farm must become impoverished. Now, the Irish people, as a whole, were almost in the position of such a holding—Ireland had been designated the drain-farm of England. No country could sustain such a steady drain of wealth without becoming impoverished. That was their position. He recognised that high taxation might even in some cases be beneficial, provided it was so levied that it drew contributions from those who would not otherwise assist in sustaining public welfare and expense. The death duties afforded a notable example. But a further special proviso should be maintained that the taxes must be spent within the country from which they were raised and not lavishly expended in paying extravagant salaries to unnecessary officials, or in maintaining unconstitutional rule. Under those conditions taxation expended in the country in which it was levied again returned to the working, distributing, professional, and official classes. But taxes exported from the country in which they were collected must be reckoned as an absolute financial loss to the community which paid the taxes so abstracted. It was recognised by eminent economists that the obligation to make heavy payments abroad had the effect of placing a country at a disadvantage throughout its foreign trade. The present commercial depression of Ireland confirmed that theory. Her
  336
  foreign trade was insignificant, whilst her enforced enormous contribution to Imperial taxation together with remittances to absentee landlords were stupendous in relation to her commerce and capacity. He would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary that in modern days oppression was mostly financial, and, if it were true that the inveterate enmities which embittered the Irish question were moderating let the Government and this House prove it by adopting measures for the revision of valuation methods, the restitution of past overtaxation and the readjustment of future levies from Ireland. Lord Brougham, an English Lord Chancellor, declared that the true test of good government was the least cost in money and subjection. Ireland cost more to govern than any country of an almost similar size and population in the world. It was subject to a perpetual coercion, and the people were deprived of the use of arms which belonged to every free people. If England was unable to govern Ireland economically constitutionally let her grant Home Rule, and an Irish Parliament would govern a prosperous and progressive people.
  MR. PARKER SMITHthought a very real and grievous burden as affecting Ireland had been brought forward, and he asserted that the just treatment of that country must depend upon fiscal principles. He was sure that the hon. Member for Durham would agree that the present system of indirect taxation on the necessities of life threw too heavy a burden upon the poorer classes and left more prosperous classes without their fair share. Then it was assumed that a system of taxation which was good for one community was good for another, and it was assumed that the present system of taxation which was adopted as being good for this country—a rich, prosperous and industrial community—was necessarily good for a community where the circumstances were entirely different. That did not at all follow. It might very well be argued that the present system of taxation was so much to the advantage of our manufactories and industries in England that any harm it did to the agricultural and poorer

  337
  classes was quite overborne by the advantage it conferred by developing the general and larger interests of the community. It did not follow, however, that such would be the case in a country which depended almost entirely upon agriculture. In this respect Ireland had suffered and was now suffering from our commercial policy. We had chosen a commercial policy which, was good for this country, and Ireland had to take its chances of success. That policy was initiated in the seventeenth century; it was carried through the eighteenth century, when we prevented the growth of industry in Ireland for the benefit of this country; and in the nineteenth century, whatever was the effect of free-trade measures in England it certainly was damaging to Ireland. Along with that came the passionate desire for symmetry which marked the Ministers of the last century. There was no attempt to get too large a share from Ireland, but there was the question of the very greatly increased burden resting upon England which marked the years following the famine—when Ireland was unfit and incapable of having fresh burdens put upon her. It was this attempt at simplicity which was Procrustean—which made taxes the same in all countries without consideration of the circumstances of the people, which made the consequences so severely felt in Ireland.
  The suffering of Ireland during the last century in the matter of its commercial prosperity was the real foundation of the whole movement in favour of Home Rule. In Scotland the Union when carried through was every bit as unpopular as ever it was in Ireland. It might have led to relations between the two countries as difficult as those existing between England and Ireland, but fortunately the Scottish people discovered the commercial advantages which the Union gave them. It was discovered that the Union opened to them a vista of prosperity in the commerce with the West Indies and other places, and that took away the whole root of bitterness and led to the happier state of feeling which had ever since prevailed. The policy chosen for England was not that which Ireland would have chosen for itself. Had that country been left free it would have
  338
  developed its own industries, and by following the same path as had been taken by our Colonies it would have developed them to its own advantage.
  The present policy of the Treasury of raising enormous sums by heavy taxation of the masses was one which threw upon those classes a burden far heavier than was borne by a protectionist country like Germany, which stood in amazement at our bearing taxation on articles of universal consumption. The question had been raised as to how this hardship was to be removed, and whether it could be removed by reducing the taxation upon those articles which formed the integral parts of food consumed by the poor of Ireland and reducing them to the level of protectionist Germany. At present the taxation on tea, tobacco, sugar, and spirits was too high, but if that taxation were to be reduced to one-half or one-third the grievance of Ireland would be very largely removed. The question was how could such alteration be made. It had been suggested that it could be done by a general reduction of the expenditure of the nation, but he felt not at all sanguine that such a reduction would ever take place, as the tendency was rather to increase than to reduce expenditure. It would be rather by reconsidering the whole system of taxation and ascertaining whether it could not be put on a wider basis; whether we could not raise large sums by indirect taxation on articles which were luxuries of the rich and which were consumed by those classes who could better afford to pay the taxation than could the mass of consumers. It was to that solution that he looked for a possible diminution of the Irish grievance.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he was not prepared to address the House, but he felt that he would not be acting justly to his constituents if he omitted to raise his voice against the over taxation of Ireland. He represented a constituency which included the poorest people in a poverty-stricken country. Before entering upon the subject he wished to direct attention to the fact that during the discussion no Ulster Unionist Members had been present. There was an allegation that Ireland was being mercilessly robbed in

  339
  the matter of taxation, but even the Act of Union had failed to ensure the attendance of the Ulster Unionists. If it had only been the case of Constable Anderson, the level-crossing at Portadown, the medical officership of Ballinasloe, or if they could have had a hit at Sir Antony MacDonnell, they would have been in their places. Those were matters which would have appealed to them, but when it came to matters affecting the very life of the poor and the comfort of all who lived in Ireland, the Ulster loyalists were not present. He had watched these financial relations very carefully, and he recollected perfectly well the sensation produced in June, 1896, by the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission, and how these Gentlemen acted then. They were all to be united to get justice for Ireland. They used almost to tumble over one another to find a place in the debate, and he recollected how all the Resolutions were framed in order that no violence should be done to the opinions of Ulster Unionism. Those Gentlemen, who did not really care anything about the financial relations of Ireland, had by the agitation managed very well to secure benefits in their own financial relations. They had secured by that agitation, by the Act of 1898, £350,000 of the rates being taken off the shoulders of the landlords. Mr. Rentoul was now a Judge, Mr. Dane was made a Judge, and Mr. Horace Plunkett had had justice done to him to the extent of £2,000 a year, and they now had in the empty benches opposite the proof of the interest taken in this matter by the Ulster Unionists. He hoped all this would be seen in Ireland, and that it would teach her a lesson that if they had to agitate a question that agitation should be carried through by those who were prepared to agitate it through thick and thin, and that they should have no dealings with any hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  He agreed in the main with everything which the hon. Member who had preceded him had said. The hon. Gentleman's impression of the historic aspect of the question was true and correct. The only person who ought to be satisfied with this debate and with the complaints and the statements of Nationalist Members,
  340
  which could not be impugned, as to the financial ruin that had been brought about in Ireland by the Union, was the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Empire. From that right hon. Gentleman's point of view the disclosures they had had were a tremendous success. From the British point of view they were a great success, though the whole question of the financial relations from the Irish point of view might be summed up in the one sentence that they were a vile, cowardly, gigantic, financial swindle. The question they were now discussing was a very large one indeed. These things began in the time of Charles II., when the cattle trade was ruined, and continued all through the eighteenth century, when every industry that Ireland possessed was destroyed. The woollen trade was destroyed, with the result that it went to America, and when the Irish Parliament succeeded in getting freedom of trade, which it had for eighteen years, because they began to get prosperous the British Government determined to destroy that. A great deal had been heard recently of the wonderful revelations in the Mac-Donnell-Wyndham correspondence. He thought there were quite as wonderful revelations in the Castlereagh-Cook correspondence. The Irish Members who carried the Act of Union, with the exception of seven, carried it through metallic bribes given to them by Mr. Cook.
  As regards the financial relations, the House must recollect the Union as it was carried in 1800 was not a financial union. Ireland had her own Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time; she had her own Chancellor of the Exchequer until 1816, the reason being that the Irish Parliament in accepting the Union could not and would not saddle their country with English debt. At the time of the Union the English debt was £446,000,000 and the Irish debt was £28,000,000, and no one except a fool would enter into a relationship with a partner who owed so much when he, comparatively, owed so little. But even in 1800 everything was predicted which had since occurred. Sheridan said that the carrying of the Union would cause the emigration of every person of wit and wisdom, of worth, intellect, and ability,

  341
  and that it would mean the imposition upon Ireland of British taxes without British prosperity and trade; a conclusion almost arrived at. Mr. Gladstone's name had been much referred to in the debate, and they all knew that Mr. Gladstone clearly saw the evil condition of poverty to which Ireland had been reduced by England's commercial policy. Before the Report of the Royal Commission was published, in March, 1888, Mr. Gladstone wrote an article on the commercial relations of England and Ireland, and he concluded that article by saying that Irishmen considered that they were robbed, and that all that he could say for himself was that when Dr. Johnson asked Irishmen not to pass the Act of Union, because if they did Ireland would be robbed by England, that advice was substantially right and true. That had no reference to what took place in the time of the Stuarts.
  He was surprised not to see the Chief Secretary in his place, as in his opinion the right hon. Gentleman should be on a question like this affecting the life of the people in Ireland. What did Englishmen really think of this matter? In 1896, to the satisfaction of a Royal Commission on which there was not a single Nationalist leader except that financial genius Mr. Sexton, it was proved that Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of £2,750,000 a year, but from that day to this not the slightest relief had been given. The hon. Member for Partick had spoken of "our" taxation. The taxation was by English Members, and the imposition of burdens in defiance of Irish votes would in itself constitute an admirable cause of war. It was simple and utter plunder. When the income-tax was first imposed seventy-four Irish Members Voted against it, only five or six, who were paid servitors of the Administration, voting in its favour. In an Irish Parliament a majority of one would have destroyed it. The Boer War, against which the Irish people all along protested, had added an extra £1,500,000 to their taxation. They had no power over their finance; the Irish Parliament was destroyed in order that that power might be taken from the Irish people. Viewed in that way, the existing financial relations were the
  342
  most damning condemnation of the Union. He had not yet made up his mind whether he was a protectionist or a free-trader, but he was certainly a protectionist in the sense that he would protect Ireland with all his strength against the robbery of England. This was a weighty and momentous question. The appearance of the House while matters so vital to the Irish people were being discussed was most disheartening. It proved what a fraud the Union was. The Act was not administered for the benefit of the Irish people. For years everything in the Union favourable to England had been pressed to the utmost, and every thing which told in favour of Ireland had been ignored. The whole proceeding was so contemptible and heartrending that there were very few Irishmen but felt that if the opportunity came it would be their bounden duty to get rid of a system which had been a complete tissue of fraudulent transactions between a strong country and a poor people who had been forced into an abominable and degrading bondage.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid it was very satisfactory to him as an English Member who sympathised in a general way with the Irish view of this case to find how differently it was treated by hon. Members opposite, and what a conflict of opinion there was in regard to it. The Member for Partick advocated a policy of protection for Ireland. With a good deal that he said about the history of the question he was in cordial agreement. He did not propose to follow him in his argument for protection, bat would merely point out that when evenings were set apart for the discussion of the protectionist question it would be just as well that he should be in his place to take part in the debate and show how that question affected Ireland. He was sincerely sorry to hear the tone of the hon. Member for Durham's speech. The substance of his remarks was that individuals were taxed, and, if the same tax was levied on different individuals it must be fair; I that Ireland, as a matter of fact, was I not quite so heavily taxed as England, because in Ireland there were no house duties, and no establishment licences

  343
  and other taxes, and, so far as could be judged from his argument, he really believed that Ireland ought to be more heavily taxed than it was at the present time. The Member for Cambridge University took a very different and a much wiser line. He said that whilst he agreed it was a question of the taxation of the individual, he believed the present taxation of Ireland was unfair, simply because the individuals in Ireland were poor, aid because, relatively to them, the individuals in this country were rich. He argued that the system of taxation ought to be altered, so that more would fall upon the rich and less upon the poor. He (the speaker) admitted that if more taxation were levied upon the rich and less upon the poor, Ireland would inevitably benefit. But there was the geographical question which the right hon. Gentleman ignored. There was also the question of the enormous increase of taxation in Ireland between 1850 and 1860, and there was further the other side of the account—the question of expenditure. That was really the question affecting Ireland as to which there ought to be a very serious reduction. Relatively there was far more spent in Ireland on government than in England or Scotland. In regard to these matters different opinions were held by Gentlemen opposite, and if this question were more pressing it would prove another bone of contention among the Unionist Party. He considered that was a favourable omen for those who sympathised with the Irish view of the question.
  Coming to his own view of the question, he was struck firstly by the enormous weight of financial authority behind the Report of the Commission of 1896. Excluding altogether Irish opinion, whether Unionist or Nationalist, and even Mr. Hunter, the late Member for Aberdeen, a strong advocate of the principle of taxable capacity, there still remained recognised financial authorities such as the late Mr. Childers, the late Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, the late Mr. Bertram Currie, and Sir David Barbour, all of whom agreed that Ireland was overtaxed under the then existing conditions.
  MR. ELLIOT: Not Sir David Barbour, I think.
  MR. EMMOTT: I think he agreed that Ireland was overtaxed, but he thought the expenditure was a set-off.
  MR. ELLIOT: He said that, looking at both sides of the revenue, Ireland was well off.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid that was really the set-off argument, but for the moment he was dealing with the one side. The only authority who took the opposite view was Sir Thomas Sutherland, and he was a business man rather than a financial expert. According to every sign by which the prosperity of a nation could be judged, Ireland was either advancing much more slowly than England or, indeed, actually going back. The income-tax returns bore testimony to the slow progress of assessments in Ireland as compared with this country, while in the matter of population there was admittedly an enormous decrease.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he had never suggested that the progress in Ireland was equal to the progress in England.
  MR. EMMOTTsuggested that if the hon. Gentleman, who was a good free-trader, would look up his free-trade arguments and apply them to Ireland, he would probably find it much more difficult to sustain his case; he would have to call in another set of arguments altogether. With regard to the set-off argument, England dictated the expenditure of Ireland and, therefore, had no right to throw it in the teeth of Ireland that a great deal more was spent in that country. The expenditure was not only dictated by England, but administered by Dublin Castle, by the forty-one detached and semi-detached boards, and very often in opposition to Irish wishes. As to the depopulation argument, it was no answer to say that in the rural districts of England the population was much less than it used to be. In England there were compensations. The men who left the rural districts often went to the towns, earned better wages, and made a much larger return to the revenue of the country than before. In Ireland they did not go into the towns, but crossed the seas, and ceased to make any contribution to the revenue of the

  345
  country. In highly-protected France and free-trade Denmark this depopulation had not taken place, and therefore they must look for some other reason.
  As there were other speakers desirous of following him, he would not intrude further upon the time of the House, In conclusion, however, he wished to ask what was the Government going to do? The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year said that, if economies could be made in Ireland, he was perfectly willing that the money saved should be devoted to Irish purposes. But how could lavish expenditure be got rid of and such savings be made until they called in the Irish people to take part in the administration of Irish affairs? With regard to the Dunraven scheme, that had been described by the Solicitor-General as a fatuous scheme, but at any rate the kind of opinion which was at the back of that scheme was a healthy sign of the times, and it had the advantage of being an increasing opinion, while the opinion of the Solicitor-General upon this subject was a decreasing one.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: There is no opinion behind it now.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid he was speaking of the temperate mind in which that scheme was formed, and the desire to cease useless wrangles and endeavour to do something useful for Ireland in which the Irish people themselves could take a part. In this country they were getting sick of these eternal wrangles. The misgovernment of Ireland was abundantly proved from year to year on the floor of this House, but they would never remedy it until they got rid of the lavish and extravagant expenditure in Ireland, and until they called in Irish opinion and Irish sentiment to help them. He agreed with the mover of this Amendment that it was not for them to propose any specific settlement. The point was: did hon. Gentlemen opposite acknowledge the grievance? Some of them did, and some did not, but if more of them would acknowledge it, then they might be able to put their heads together and endeavour to find some effective remedy.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said he thought that, without any disrespect to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, some of the most interesting speeches that had been made upon it had come from English Members He did not think the contribution made by the hon. Member who had just spoken had helped them much; he gathered that the hon. Member was not so much concerned with the financial relations which existed between the different parts of the United Kingdom as with the proposal to return to that separation of political interests which had twice been before that House, but which the majority in this country had never been willing to support.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid he did not deal with the figures as he should have liked, being anxious to compress his remarks.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he recognised the difficulty under which the hon. Member had been speaking. The hon. Member for Donegal told them that on this occasion he would speak from his heart rather than from his head; that perhaps accounted for some of the views of history which he sketched, but he hoped it did not account for the rather violent language which the hon. Gentleman addressed to other hon. Members who represented the sister isle. The most remarkable feature of the hon. Gentleman's speech was the sympathy he expressed with the very interesting speech of his hon. friend the Member for Partick, and it was a curious and noticeable fact that, as far as he was aware, that was the only speech made by an English Member which had received any approval from the Irish Benches opposite. Other hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen representing English constituencies had contributed to the discussion, but they had not in the solution they had put forward been fortunate enough to win the support of the hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  The hon. Member for Dublin, in moving us Amendment, departed somewhat from he course he had usually followed in discussing this question by challenging the whole basis of the Returns known as the Financial Relations Returns. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that they

  347
  were discussing this question this year too early for the Return to be in the hands of Members, but said that was of the less consequence since, in the first place, the principle on which the Return was constructed had varied from year to year, and had been varied, the hon. Gentleman was inclined to think, by Treasury officials or by Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, always to the detriment of Ireland and in such a way as to make the case against the United Kingdom less strong or more weak than it would otherwise appear. The hon. Gentleman spoke of there having been a change from the principle on which it was constructed last year; that was an entire misconception. There was a change in the proportions of consumption of certain dutiable articles allocated between the two countries, and a change in the proportions of taxation, but there was no change in the principle on which the Return was made. More accurate information had been obtained than was previously available, and they had modified the proportions between the two countries accordingly. He thought the hon. Gentleman himself would see that, even if the Returns obtained in 1893–4 showed what was the true consumption in Ireland, or the true proportion of direct taxation paid by the people domiciled in Ireland, those proportions would not be likely to remain exactly true for the space of more than ten years, especially with the falling population which had been alluded to. But that was not all. At that time the returns were hurriedly collected, for the information was required in haste, and the observations extended over only a short portion of the year. Accordingly, in taking new returns a couple of years ago the observations were extended over the whole year, and in other ways greater efforts made to secure accuracy, That was the change, and the only change, which had been made in the Return; it was not a change in principle.
  Then the hon. Gentleman contended that the true contribution of Ireland to the Exchequer was the amount of revenue collected in Ireland, just as the revenue of France or Germany was the revenue collected in France or Germany. It must be clear, he thought, to every one who considered for a moment, that as
  348
  long as we were the United Kingdom, with a single fiscal policy, a single Exchequer, and a single system, Customs and every revenue duty which, if we had two separate systems, would be paid by people dwelling in this country might, now be collected in Ireland. There was, for instance, duty paid on tobacco which was manufactured in Ireland, but which was smoked by people living in this country. If the hon. Gentleman were successful in dividing our finances and fiscal system, of course the payment of that due, now collected in Ireland, would be transferred to this country. But there was another side to the account in following the hon. Gentleman's calculation; they would reduce the amount, which was now got as Irish contribution instead of increasing it. It had always been known, for instance, that income-tax was collected in England on certain dividends, interest on certain stocks and securities which were owned in Ireland, and in making this Financial Return on the present basis, which he believed was a fair one, they allocated as far as Ireland's contribution to the Exchequer was concerned a proportion of income-tax which was really paid by Ireland, although actually collected in other portions of the United Kingdom.
  Then the hon. Gentleman said that Army and Navy expenditure as an Imperial charge common to every portion of the United Kingdom was unjust and unfair in so far as the money spent on the Army or Navy was spent in England, and he called attention to the amount of money spent in dockyards in this country. If he understood the hon. Gentleman's arguments, he said that money spent in this country, even though spent on the Navy for general purposes of national or Imperial defence, ought to be considered as specially chargeable to England, because English workpeople were employed.
  MR. CLANCY: Because England gets the benefit of it.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that every portion of the British Empire got the benefit of the Imperial Navy and Army. But, taking it on its narrowest lines, it seemed to him that it, was absurd to try to weigh the relative

  349
  contributions, or what should be the relative contributions, between these two portions of the United Kingdom on any such principle as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and certainly, whatever sympathy might be felt, from no other quarter of the House had any agreement been expressed with those proposals. He should say, with his hon. friend the Member for Durham and his right hon. friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, that it was a very material fact, though its relevance was denied by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the taxes paid by any individual citizens in Ireland were in no case in excess of, and in some cases were less than, the taxes paid by similar citizens in this country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin said the argument was neither pertinent nor true. It was not pertinent because, he said, it was contrary to the spirit and, indeed, to the letter of the Act of Union, which provided for "particular exemptions and abatements" if they should be required by the special circumstances of Ireland. If they had none but those words to guide them, it would be perfectly obvious, he thought, that special exemptions and abatements did not mean such a large and general exemption from taxation as the hon. Gentleman sought to secure. But the same formula was, in the same words if he remembered rightly, repeated in the Act of Union with Scotland—it was certainly repeated as towards Scotland in the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland. The language in regard to both countries was the same; but there was no such general difference between the taxation of England and Scotland and no such claim as the hon. Gentleman based on these words put forward on behalf of Scotland prior to the Act of Union with Ireland. When hon. Gentlemen opposite quoted the authors of that Act in support of their contentions, he must be permitted to read two short extracts, one from Lord Castlereagh and the other from Mr. Pitt, bearing on this subject. Lord Castlereagh, speaking in the Irish House of Commons on February 5th, 1800, said—
  "Were our expenditure common (which would happen if neither kingdom had any separate debts, or if their debts were in proportion to their ability), by no system whatever could they be made to contribute so strictly according to their means as by being
  350
  subject to the same taxes equally bearing upon the great objects of taxation in both countries. Such, however, is the disproportion of debts of the two kingdoms to each other at the present time that a common system for the present is impossible."
  That lent no support to the, suggestion that Lord Castlereagh attached to the phrase, "particular exemptions and abatements," such a meaning as was sought to be affixed to it in Ireland, Here were Mr. Pitt's words. Speaking in the British House of Commons on April 21st, 1800, he said—
  "The object of the financial arrangement is to effect the gradual abolition of all distinction in finance and revenue between the two countries, and to accelerate the time when both countries form but one fund and pay one uniform proportion to taxes throughout each."
  He thought that was conclusive as to the view taken by the authors of the Act of Union and destructive of the allegation that they intended that these "particular exemptions and abatements," which they contemplated as a possibility, were to result in any such general differentiation in the system of taxation in Ireland from that in the rest of Great Britain as had been suggested that day.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to argue that this common system of taxation bore with special harshness upon Irish consumers, because it hit certain articles which were specially articles of Irish consumption. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman felt that the Irish grievance would really be reduced if they halved the whisky duty. That was an article which he described as of special Irish consumption.
  MR. CLANCY: I mentioned tea also.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Tea is not more largely consumed than in this country.
  MR. CLANCY: It is in proportion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the consumption of tea per head was practically the same in the two countries. Whisky, he thought, was more largely the national beverage of Irishmen than it was of Englishmen, but the hon. Gentleman knew that the taxation on whisky was imposed not purely on fiscal grounds. There were what they called social and moral reasons which had governed the

  351
  amount of taxation on that article, which had not been regarded solely from the financial point of view.
  The hon. Member suggested that the mere fact that Ireland contributed a much larger proportion of the revenue collected in that country by indirect than by direct taxation was in itself sufficient to show that Ireland had a grievance, and, as he understood, paid too much. That might be an argument as to whether the fiscal system common to the, United Kingdom had been always in the past, or was even now, that which Ireland, if she were left to herself, would choose as her own, or the best which could be conceived by a dispassionate inquirer investigating her situation; but he ventured to say that, whether that was the best system or not, whether the amount contributed by direct taxpayers in Ireland was in due proportion to that contributed by indirect taxpayers or not, it had no bearing on the amount of the contribution that Ireland ought to make to the common expenses of the United Kingdom.
  He was bound to say that, on this point, the hon. Gentleman's speech was remarkable for a very curious omission. The hon. Member argued that Ireland paid a great deal too much. He very largely based himself on the Report of the Royal Commission on the financial relations of the two countries; but he gave no hint or indication of what was, in his opinion, the amount she ought to contribute or whether he accepted any of the theories which were put before that Commission. This was a matter of some interest, because they had had a good deal of strong denunciation of the present system and a good deal of declamation about the hardship and wrong which Ireland suffered, but they had not had a statement of what it actually was that Ireland contributed to the general expenditure of the two countries. The taxable capacity of Ireland was estimated by the Royal Commission as being, he thought, one to twenty.
  MR. CLANCY: Not exceeding one to twenty.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As not being in greater proportion than one
  352
  to twenty. What was she actually contributing at the present time to our common Imperial burdens? The actual contribution was one-forty-fifth of that of Great Britain. In 1893–4, when the Royal Commission was inquiring into the subject, it was one-thirtieth, and in the eleven years which had since elapsed it had fallen to one-forty-fifth. Could it be pretended that such a contribution to the common expenses was too much, or, if they looked at the financial question only, if they had regard only to the letter of the Act of Union, could it be contended that the rest of the United Kingdom had not taken upon its shoulders not merely as much of the common expenditure as it was its business to bear, but had no; contributed greatly more than its due proportion? He would endeavour to forestall an objection which the hon. Gentleman foreshadowed in his speech when he said that he was counting as Irish expenditure much that ought not to be charged to Irish account. If, to meet that objection, he deducted from Irish expenditure the salary of the Lord-Lieutenant, half of the present cost of the Constabulary and the Dublin metropolitan police, and a third of the cost of the judiciary, still the contribution which Ireland would make to our common Imperial expenditure would be only one-thirty-fourth. The hon. Member for St. Patrick Division complained last year that his only answer was to give flippant figures. He did not know what the hon. Member meant by flippant figures; but whatever adjective the hon. Member might apply to those figures he thought they were a better test of the actual state of things than much of the language that had been used, and were worthy of the serious consideration of the House.
  The hon. Gentleman who spoke last alluded to the fact that last year he expressed his concurrence in the proposal that the then Chief Secretary made to him, following a precedent set in past years, that if further economy could be made in the Irish judiciary, the sum so allocated should be, as it were, re-spent in Ireland on purposes of development or administration which might commend themselves to the Government and to the people of that country. He thought that in more branches than one of the Irish

  353
  Administration it was probable that, with the goodwill of the Irish Members, considerable economies could be made. But Irish Members were not so anxious to help the Government in the saving of Irish expenditure as they were to secure further grants from the common Exchequer to be employed in that country. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: That is not so.] The hon. Gentleman denied that, but in his short experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer he had had more commands to "stand and deliver" fresh money from the public purse than suggestions from hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the manner in which money might be saved. It would be impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake that the whole benefit of every economy made should always go to Ireland, and that no economy should ever result to the common Exchequer. If that system was adopted in Ireland it must be applied also to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would no longer have power to make any economy at all. He could not make that promise in that unqualified form, although he had promised in regard to the savings in connection with the judiciary contemplated by his right hon. friend the Member for Dover that he would seriously consider with the Chief Secretary proposals, if he was able to put them forward, with a view to interesting the representatives of Ireland in securing those economies by devoting at least a portion of the accruing money to the development of purposes which had their sympathy and support. He thought they might do much practical good if they had the goodwill and support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, irrespective of politics. But to the argument for a system of separate national finance, which was based upon separatist grounds and had its birth in a separatist measure, and which was supported as the first step towards that end, he and those who thought with him could give nothing but the strongest opposition.
  MR. DILLONsaid he would not attempt to enter into the historical portion of the subject nor to go into details of the figures which had been submitted. The main argument was a familiar one and could be disposed of
  354
  briefly. It was that under the present system of taxation in Ireland, every individual paid at the rate of £2 4s., whilst in England the amount was £3 12s. per head. Consequently, the population of Ireland paid less per head than did the population of England. He would like to point out that at the time of the Union England paid close upon £4 per head, whilst Ireland paid only 12s. Since then the wealth per head of the population of England. had enormously increased, and the taxation had decreased, whilst in the case of Ireland the wealth per head had considerably decreased during the same period and the taxation had increased threefold. That was the simple state of affairs, and he asked what was the explanation of it. The truth was that when the Irish nation was tacked on to a great commercial and manufacturing country they were bound to suffer. Whenever in the course of the last century the interests of Great Britain came into collision with those of Ireland, the latter always went to the wall. That was notably the case when Great Britain introduced the system of free trade, and thus laid the axe at the root of the only source of industry and wealth of Ireland. When it suited Great Britain to throw the whole burden of taxation upon subjects affecting Ireland it did so ruthlessly, the result being that whereas the wealth of Great Britain had enormously increased the population of Ireland had decreased and its taxation had trebled. Was it any wonder that the Irish felt aggrieved at the present situation? He thought Scotland had some grievance, but in these matters they had to look on broad national results. The complaints of Scotland became slight because she flourished under the Union, and during the last century her population had increased three-fold and her wealth had increased ten-fold. In the case of Ireland her population had fallen by 50 per cent., and her wealth had fallen also.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted Pitt. That eminent statesman was no friend to Ireland, but he never contemplated the monstrous injustice from which that country had suffered during the last century. The wealth, population, and commerce of England had since the time

  355
  of Pitt increased by leaps and bounds, whilst the wealth, population, and commerce of Ireland had absolutely decreased, therefore any idea of a common system of finance and taxation for the two countries was quite impracticable. The hon. Member for Partick had referred to the injustice put upon Ireland in the matter of taxation of the necessaries of life. He could conceive a condition of Parties in this country when they might be tempted to inflict something in the nature of revenge upon Great Britain for all the injuries she had inflicted upon Ireland. An hour might come when Ireland could inflict taxation on the food of England. It would be wiser to deal with Ireland justly before that hour arrived, and not force her to endeavour to close her markets to the world. Ireland had been brought to such a condition that she had nothing to rely upon. It suited England to open its markets to the Argentine, to Siberia, America, Canada, and elsewhere, but that did not suit Ireland, and they might be tempted to do something in the way of tariff e-form. Those were the considerations aroused in his mind by the speech of the hon. Member for Partick. But what was his astonishment to hear the hon. Member for Durham deliberately say that although the progress of Ireland was not so good as the progress of Great Britain, yet everyone must admit that in wealth and prosperity its progress had been considerable. He denied that. He would not ask the House to accept his word or those of his colleagues, who as prophets of evil had been telling these things to the House for many years. He asked hon. Members to get the pamphlet written by Lord Dunraven, an Irish gentleman and landed proprietor, whose word might be accepted as that of an impartial exponent of the facts. Lord Dunraven said—
  "Year by year the country has been sinking deeper and deeper in misfortune, and now it has reached a point at which it must be decided as to whether the downward tendency is to continue to the inevitable and most melancholy end, or whether a supreme effort shall be made to lift the country out of the national bankruptcy in man-power, intelligence, and material prosperity which so imminently threatens it."
  Those were solemn words to come from a member of the Unionist Party. That
  356
  was his belief as to the condition of Ireland. Did the hon. Member for Durham think that satisfactory. National bankruptcy was Lord Dunraven's prophecy. Those words were written after all the flummery to which they had listened for the last ten years with regard to agricultural development and all the bogus remedies that had been applied to the deadly disease of Ireland. That was the testimony of an Irish gentleman who had taken no part in politics. The thing which had tempted Lord Dunraven to take the part in politics that he had was the condition of Ireland and the fact that it was travelling headlong to ruin. When he heard hon. Gentlemen opposite speaking of Ireland as they did, he would ask them had there been in the whole history of the civilised world a tragedy comparable with the tragedy of Ireland? In 1801 the population of Ireland was 5,395,000, in 1901 it was 4,458,000. After a century of this system of taxation, during which the population of England and Wales had nearly doubled, the population of Ireland had decreased by 1,000,000. He challenged hon. Members who talked about the advance of progress in Ireland to point to any country in the civilised world with which it could be compared.
  It was idle to talk of Ireland's condition being the result of its being an agricultural country. Was not Denmark an agricultural country? What about Sweden and Norway, Wurtemburg and many of the States in the German Federation, and Holland, which was teeming with wealth; not to go to the East of Europe? What about Hungary and Roumania, all increasing rapidly, whilst here, at the very doors of Great Britain, was one of the most fertile lands in Europe wasted as by a war? He recommended hon. Gentlemen opposite to peruse a series of articles which had been appearing in the Daily Mail recently on the subject of Ireland. They were written by a gentleman named Kennedy who had been travelling through Ireland on behalf of that journal, a gentleman who was gifted with the remarkable genius of putting into a sentence the whole history of the country.

  357
  Mr. Kennedy described the country as he saw it, and used these words—
  "What is the matter with this country? Was there ever created a more lovely country? Why have the people left it?"
  That was the first question which struck everyone who came into Ireland. The people had left it because they were under the harrow of a financial system which was imposed by a treacherous Government to destroy their prosperity. But that was only a small part of the tragedy of Ireland. An anti-emigration league had been formed which he was invited to join. He refused, because, as he said, they might as well try and brush back the Atlantic with a broom as try and stop emigration from Ireland, because the people could not live in Ireland, where the wages were starvation, and where the only industry left was ruined by the Government of this country. Ireland was a ruined country in spite of all. The parties of emigrants which had been leaving the country were ever increasing in number until, as a priest, a friend of his, wrote the other day—
  "Where is this to end? Within the last three months 127 of the flower of my flock have left my parish, and I shall soon be left with only old people and children too young to work."
  The population was withering away as though struck by a pestilence. The cause was the existing financial system of evil government. The worst feature of the depopulation was that the young and strong and healthy were going away, while the refuse of the population, the idiots, the lunatics, and the diseased, who would not be accepted in America, were being left behind. Thus it came about that while the number of persons returned as lunatics in Ireland in 1851— alter the famine and with a population of over 8,000,000—was one in 637, the number had increased in 1861 to one in 411, in 1871 to one in 328, in 1881 to one in 281, and in 1891 to one in 222. In Minister it was one in 152, and in Connaught one in 184. In other words, the lunatics in Ireland had increased fourfold owing to the enormous outpouring of the youth of the population. There was no greater test of the prosperity of a nation than the marriage and birth rate. The rate in Ireland used to be one of the highest in the world, it was now the lowest, below even
  358
  that of France. The people who wanted to marry went to America. It was deplorable that the question should be treated in the manner adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that no British Minister could be got who would apply his mind to this matter, even from the Unionist point of view, with a large, generous, and sympathetic spirit, and make some rational attempt to remedy the appalling condition of things. Lord Dunraven also stated—
  "The broad fact is that the best in Ireland is flying elsewhere, the worst is drifting in increasing proportions to lunatic asylums, and the balance remains in Ireland of necessity rather than of choice."
  That was a condition of things which really deserved the attention of Parliament, and it was largely due to unjust taxation and that unsympathetic financial system imposed upon Ireland by this country.
  Why was it that Ireland's proportion of contribution to Imperial funds was growing smaller? Because the country was growing proportionately poorer. He could conceive a point at which, under the existing system, Ireland might make no contribution whatever towards Imperial Government expenses, and yet be shamefully overtaxed. The real test was how the country was going on, whether it was improving in population, wealth, trade, and all that went to make national prosperity. In all these respects Ireland was going back, and all that had been done of recent years was the merest absurdity and humbug when considered as really effective remedies.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to a pledge given in 1897 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, and since embodied in an Act, that all savings effected in the administration of Ireland should be set aside in a special fund, called the Irish development grant, and used for the benefit of Ireland. There seemed to be an inclination on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withdraw somewhat from the pledge. That affected him, personally, much less than some of his colleagues, as he was entirely opposed to this system of finance. It was intrinsically unsound. From the beginning he had felt that the development grant would be set up as a buffer between the Irish people and the

  359
  Treasury, and that the only result would be that Irish demands, hitherto met from the common Treasury, would be relegated to this purely Irish fund—a practice which might be described as feeding the dog with a bit of his own tail. That was exactly what had occurred, and it was likely to go on in an ever-increasing degree. The system was essentially a vicious one. A pocket of money withdrawn from the general financial system of the country always became the object of jobs and of log-rolling as to who should get the most of it. The experience of centuries showed it to be a bad and vicious system, and it had been applied to Ireland simply in the hope of stopping the mouths of the Irish people by the so-called development grant. The Government had been forced to recognise that they were treating Ireland meanly and ungenerously, and in their effort to devise some means by which they should appear to undo some of the injustice which the present financial system inflicted upon her they had set up this system. As time went on it would be found to be a bad system and a corrupt method of dealing with the finances of
  the country, and what had happened already? A year ago Ireland had an equivalent grant for education of £185,000, but instead of being applied to education as it ought to have been, it had been thrown into a common pool, and had been used for all kinds of objects, and only some £20,000 had been used for the purpose for which the fund was originally intended. Under the present system of governing Ireland every effort they made to remedy the unhappy condition of things in Ireland would only end in making it worse. As long as they adhered to the principle of the Union and denied to the people of Ireland a voice in the government of the country, it would be the duty of English Ministers, instead of quibbling about figures and endeavouring to prove that Ireland was justly treated, to take a broad and generous view of the real facts of the situation and propose a remedy.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 238; Noes, 155. (Division List No. 158.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Brassey, Albert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Bull, William James

  Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Butcher, John George

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

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

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

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

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Fison, Frederick William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Flower, Sir Ernest

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Forster, Henry William

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gardner, Ernest

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Bigwood, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gretton, John

  Bill, Charles

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Bingham, Lord

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Hain, Edward

  Bond, Edward

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x

  Milner, Rt Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Spear, John Ward

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Heath, Sir James(Staffords. NW

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Helder, Augustus

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Percy Earl

  Tuff, Charles

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Turnour, Viscount

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Kenyon-Slaney. Rt Hon. Col. W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Keswick, William

  Purvis, Robert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Randles, John S.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne)

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

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

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Younger, William

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

  Sharps, William Edward T.

  Viscount Valentia

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh're

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork N. E.)

  Gheetham, John Frederick

  Fenwick, Charles

  Ambrose, Robert

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Austin, Sir John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Field, William

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Grean, Eugene

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Cullinan, J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Blake, Edward

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Roland, John

  Delany, William

  Gilhooly, James

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Brigg, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Dillon, John

  Hammond, John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Burns, John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Burt, Thomas

  Edwards, Frank

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Caldwell, James

  Emmott, Alfred

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Cameron, Robert

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  362

  363

  Johnson, John

  Murnaghan, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Murphy, John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Jones, William (Garnarvonshire)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sheehy, David

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Slack, John Bamford

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

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

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Doherty, William

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E)

  Langley, Batty

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accington

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lloyd-George, David

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lough, Thomas

  Parrott, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Lundon, W.

  Partington, Oswald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  White, Luke (York E. R.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Whiteley, George (York. W. B.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Price, Robert John

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  M'Crae, George

  Rea, Russell

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

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson John (Durham, Mid.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Woodhouse. Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  M'Kean, John

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Young, Samuel

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Yoxall, James Henry

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Roberts, John H. (Derbighs.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Roche, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Mooney, John J.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Runciman, Walter

  Main Question again proposed.
  And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.
  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10).

    EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) ACT, 1904 (MERIONETH).
    MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSsaid he feared that the putting into operation of this Act in Merioneth would lead to considerable trouble in the near future. He had hoped that a middle way of peace might have been found. Given men free from prejudice, such a way was not impossible; but the Board of Education preferred the heavy bludgeon of the new Act. The original communication received by the education committee from the Board of education did not give the opinion of the law officers of the Crown with regard to the legal point raised by the deputation which waited on Lord Londonderry, and which had previously been raised by Lord
    364
    Stanley of Alderley—viz., that the obligation of the local authority to maintain non-provided schools did not begin until the antecedent duty of managers to put their buildings in sufficient repair had been discharged. The contention of the Merionethshire Committee was that no liability rested upon them to discharge the claims made by managers of non-provided schools, owing to the failure of the management to make the repairs of the schoolhouses required by the committee. The Board of Education had advanced certain specific reasons for disregarding that contention. They were (1) That the committee applied for and received Parliamentary grants in respect to the non-provided schools, such grants being only payable with respect to schools which had complied with Section 7 of the Education Act of 1902. (2) That the county fund, throughout the period September 30th (the appointed day), 1903, and November 1st, 1904, had been applied to the maintenance of those schools. (3) That the secretary to the committee signed certain certificates to the effect that these schools had satisfied the conditions of Section 7 of the Education Act, 1902. The committee submitted

    365
    that in no instance had a certificate been signed, save a counter-signature, and that even if a counter-signature was, as the Board contended—but as the committee denied—equivalent to a certificate, that certificate did not state that the school satisfied the conditions of Section 7 of the Act of 1902, but Section 7 of the Act of 1870. The committee did not apply the county fund towards the maintenance of these schools, and it never had been so applied. The Board had been asked to state the ground on which they did not agree to the committee's contentions, but they had treated the committee with contempt and discourtesy. When the money was witheld from the three schools, the Board did not supply any information as to the items allowed or disallowed, but simply notified the sums they intended to pay. Surely before payment was made the committee should have had the opportunity of lodging objections. The Board asserted that the only action taken by the committee under Section 7 was before the Act came into operation, and was a report on the premises made simply for the information of the county council by the surveyors. But it was perfectly evident that the report was treated by the managers as sufficient notice. Indeed, the Board of Education received appeals against these requirements fully twelve months ago, and such appeals had been reported upon by the Board's officers. In face of these facts, he did not see how the Board could feel justified in supporting the technical objection made by the managers.
    In the case of Llanellyn School, near Dolgelly, in which the Board had decided the action of the committee was not justified, the position of the schoolhouse was most unsuitable, the playground was inadequate and it was impossible to extend it. There was imminent danger to health caused by a polluted stream, the closets were disgraceful, their position bad, and the possibility of improving it nil; and it was impossible to light the premises satisfactorily. It was in these conditions that the education committee required the erection of a new school on a suitable site, and it was within their knowledge that the managers themselves, up to a very recent date, held identical
    366
    views as to the impossibility of repairing the building, and they instructed an architect to prepare plans for a new school. The committee contended that they were legally entitled to refuse to maintain such a school, and they ought to be told under what statutory powers the Board had decided that the refusal was not justified. There was a specific case in point—the Holywell School in Flintshire. There the local authority demanded that a new school should be built upon an entirely new site, and the Board of Education with great reluctance upheld the demand. The consequence would be that the Church managers would have to find about £5,000, and he saw it stated that they were not prepared to do anything of the kind. There were scores of schools in Wales in the same position, and if the local authority demanded new schools the Board would have to uphold them.
    He wished to know why the Board of Education had withheld £2,400 when only £400 was due to the Church schools. As a matter of mere courtesy some explanation was due from them. They had paid out the money without checking the vouchers, and they had refused to let the education committee do so. The Board ignored the contention of this section with regard to the certificates, and he could only presume that it was because they were alive to the fact that they had made a mistake and had acted in a high-handed manner. He referred to the communication received from the Board at the opening of these proceedings, which stated that the arrears were in respect of the period prior to November 1st, 1904, and that it was not contended by them that the schools did not comply with Section 7 in the first instance, and that it was not open to them, as a ground for not maintaining the schools, to make the contention that they did not comply with that section now. The Board, therefore, saw no reason why steps should not be taken to refund the managers the expense incurred in maintaining the schools. That was a very significant declaration, and he regarded it as the death warrant of scores of Church schools in every Welsh county. If the Glamorganshire Committee, for instance, exercised its powers under Section 7 of the Act, it could at

    367
    its next meeting decline to recognise any of the Church schools in the county which had not complied with its demands. The local authorities in Wales had shown great consideration for the managers of Church schools in the difficulties in which they had been placed. Although notices had been given in a great many instances, they had been looked upon as a matter of form, and in many cases had been treated as a dead letter. Was it conceivable that this attitude of benevolent neutrality would continue towards the Church schools in other countries now that this attack had been made on Merioneth? It was only natural that peaceful forbearance should give way to active aggression.
    There was a great deal more in this unhappy dispute than the triumph of Church or chapel, or the permanence of the Establishment. The rights of conscience were attacked when a man was made to pay for the teaching of dogma in which he did not believe; the liberty of the citizen was attacked when the refusal of a local authority to vote public money for sectarian purposes involved imprisonment; the Constitution was attacked when a Minister of the Crown deliberately forced upon an unwilling country an Act which the electors of that country had deliberately condemned. Burke had said that people were governed by a knowledge of their temper and a judicious management of it, and that in conflicts between the people and their rulers the presumption of right was at least equally in favour of the people. The people of Wales were to-day just as much in the right and the Government in the wrong as when Pym and Hampden made their protest against the payment of ship-money. Wales did not seek disorder. She was a law-abiding nationality, but when the will of a Bishop and the whim of a Premier presumed upon that characteristic, who would blame her if she defended those liberties to the utmost of her power. The setting of the Defaulting Authorities Act in operation against Merionethshire would produce an exhibition of national unity such as Wales had never shown before.
    SIR ALFRED THOMASsaid he rose to second the
    368
    Motion of his hon. friend the Member for Merionethshire. So fully had his hon. friend gone into the question that it was not necessary for him to furnish further details, and he would confine himself to principles involved in the question. Beyond saying that his hon, friend's speech was worthy of the constituency represented by the late Mr. Thomas Ellis, his object was rather to show that his hon. friend had the support of all the Liberal Members of the Principality. The Government could not say that they were not warned as to what would be the result if they forced through the House such legislation as that contemplated by the Education Act of 1902. Nothing but disaster could follow. Indeed, it was not necessary for men with such brilliant parts and unique knowledge of their country to foretell what would be the result, any one with the most superficial knowledge of Wales and the Welsh people could come to no other conclusion from a measure that seemed to be specially framed for the purpose of driving the people into insurrection; and, as if to emphasise the gross blunder they had perpetrated, within some two years the Government found they had to bring in a Coercion Act to force the Welsh people to carry out that objectionable measure. Notwithstanding, he had hoped for better things even from the present Government.
    The other evening in the debate on the vote of censure they were told that some ten counties in Ireland were proclaimed, and up to that time he understood the Crimes Act had not been put into force. More than that, they were told for some two years Ireland had enjoyed a tranquillity and prosperity not equalled in any like period since the Union, and they might ask Why? For the reason that the late Chief Secretary was wise enough to be guided by an Irish patriot. But, unfortunately for the Government, they had no Sir Antony MacDonnell in the Education Department, and he feared from what he had heard that afternoon that the benevolent influence he had wielded in the sister isle was withdrawn from that country. Should this be so, then all who were concerned for peace and good order in

    369
    that country could not but deeply regret so deplorable a circumstance. But for the moment, taking it that such a calamity had not befallen Ireland, they had to say that even if this Act had been administered in the same spirit as Irish affairs during the last two years they would not have heard of the Welsh revolt and the Defaulting Authorities Act. It was difficult to realise that the administrators of a great Empire should be so ignorant of the habits, customs and creeds of a little country whose border was within some 130 miles from the seat of Government. Indeed, they could not have been more ignorant of the people of a province in India or China. To imagine that authorities like the county councils of Wales, each with a large Liberal majority—and that was equivalent to saying large majorities of Nonconformists—would put into force an Act that outraged their feelings and consciences! They thought it was bad enough to pay money into the Exchequer, part of which was devoted to teach creeds from which they dissented; but when they were asked to levy rates on themselves, and still more on their friends, in order to pay for the teaching of those creeds, it was more than any reasonable man would expect. He would venture to assert that there was no Gentleman on the opposite side of the House but would view with contempt any such action on the part of men holding and professing the principles of Welsh Nonconformity.
    They had to complain that no public inquiry, with the exception of the abortive inquiry held at Carmarthen, had been made into this very vexed question. The Government used to very freely use a tribunal that they had not heard much of lately—a Royal Commission. Now, if there was ever a justification for holding such an inquiry, this was one of them. Statistics proved that the Welsh people paid more per inhabitant for education than any one of the other portions of the United Kingdom, and, of the thirteen counties of the Principality, Merionethshire had been one of the most generous. And yet this was the county of all others that the Education Department had first put in default. This was the way the Government showed their appreciation of
    370
    the sacrifice the quarrymen of Festiniog and the peasantry of Merionethshire had made for higher, intermediate, and elementary education. He would wish to say, however strongly he resented the action of the Education Department, he hoped that the hon. Baronet would not understand that anything personal was intended to one whom they all respected. Indeed, he very much regretted that the hon. Baronet had to play the part of "Shylock" in this educational drama. But he wished to warn him and the Government, if they were determined to extract this "pound of flesh" from the Welsh people, they would have to be more dextrous' than they had hitherto proved themselves to be if they did so without drawing one drop of blood.
    He would conclude as he began, with, saying that he had hoped the Government would have been able to carry on elementary education in Wales without having recourse to coercion. And he believed that would have been possible if the hon. Baronet had been advised by those who were competent to rightly understand the gravity of the situation in Wales. To put such legislation as the Defaulting Authorities Act into force in the Principality could not but be a most dangerous measure, and it must be obvious to all who knew Wales. But if the Government were determined to put into operation all the vindictive powers of the Defaulting Act, then, at least let them understand they did so after the most serious protest possible from the representatives of the Welsh people; and whatever might be the evil consequences of their action it would lie at the door of the present Administration.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —(Mr. Osmond Williams.)
    MR. CRIPPSsaid that no one regretted the religious dispute under the Education Act more than he did, though it showed among the various Parties and creeds a strong sense of the real importance of religion and the rights of conscience in our education system. What he wanted was if possible to bring about some means by which those who had strong feelings on this

    371
    question—Nonconformist, Church of England, or any other denomination—should have the right and opportunity of bringing up their children in the national schools as far as possible in the denomination to which their parents adhered. It was from that point of view that he would deal with the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member who proposed the Motion. He wanted to say a word from the Church point of view. He did not believe there would be any difficulty in putting in force all the principles to which the hon. Member for Merioneth had particularly alluded.
    The first question, the hon. Member had said, was right of conscience. Undoubtedly right of conscience ought not only to be guarded but safeguarded in every possible way in regard to the question of education. But how were they to do it? The great interference with the right of conscience—the right of parents to bring up their children in the denomination they selected—arose from the maintenance of the Cowper-Temple clause. There was no clause in the whole course of the Education Act which so much really interfered with the right of conscience as the clause which prohibited a child from being taught the religion of the denomination which the parents might desire in the elementary schools. Why not have a system of denominational education both in provided and non-provided schools, so that every child might be brought up in the religion which its parent desired? That was what he called giving due regard to the right of conscience. It had never been the Church Party that had objected to that. On the contrary, the Church Party in that House had stated constantly that their desire was not to exclude religious education, and that it was not to have the exclusive right of education in the non-provided schools. But religious education was such a source of friction that they could not always carry out what they desired. Let all schools, if they liked, go on a common basis, and let there be the right of entry to any denomination either to provided or non-provided schools. Wherever there were two or three children whose parents desired a particular form of denominational edu-
    372
    cation there ought to be facilities under which that form of denominational education should be given.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We actually offered what the hon. and learned Member suggests to Merionethshire, and it was refused by the clergy.
    MR. CRIPPSsaid that Churchmen had often offered such a system if it were given a general application; but it had been defeated because the Nonconformists would not give up that most sectarian of all provisions, the Cowper-Temple clause. He himself believed that there ought to be this common right of entry. He did not believe the difficulty came from the Church of England at all. It was in the direction he had indicated, and that direction only, that the religious difficulty could be settled. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite on this point. Every true lover of denominational education must wish the right of conscience to be extended as widely as possible. He wished to ensure in regard to Anglican children that they should have the opportunity of receiving Anglican education. The only way to get rid of the religious difficulty was not to exclude religious education, but to give it the widest possible basis, so that every denomination should have in regard to its own children equal and fair opportunity. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and other hon. Members had often expressed themselves in favour of a settlement of the religious difficulty on that basis.
    The second point made by the hon. Member who moved the Resolution was as to the liberty of the subject. What did he mean by that? There might be many laws with which they were not in agreement, and if a man had a conscientious objection, if he preferred the penalty of the law to obedience to the law, he was not one of those who would find fault with that action. He thought there were many circumstances in which a man was bound to do it. If he had a serious conscientious objection he was bound to act according to the dictates of conscience, taking his chance of whatever penalties might follow. But

    373
    the question here was a much wider proposition. He thought there should be no general liberty given to citizens to disobey the law. Exactly the same principle should apply to education as to any other subject. That was exactly what he said the other night about East Ham. Although an individual might have a conscientious objection a local authority was not justified in taking such action as many local authorities had taken in this matter. It would tend to greater illegality, and, therefore, to less liberty, because legality and liberty must always go hand in hand. The hon. Member for Merionethshire said that the Act was unconstitutional and made some harsh remarks about the Prime Minister and the Bishops.
    MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: I would be the last person to make any harsh remarks.
    MR. CRIPPSsaid he would withdraw the word "harsh." They would never be able to rely on a body which had to carry out Governmental duties if it was to be allowed to judge whether an Act was constitutional or not. As long as it was an Act it must be accepted for the purposes of administration, and as one which local authorities must and ought to obey. He did not understand the hon. Member to contend that the Act was unconstitutional in the wider sense because it had been enacted in a constitutional manner. If they were going to allow anyone to call in question an Act after it had been passed, and allow the right to disobey it, he did not believe there was a single Member of the House who would not find some Act of Parliament with which he thoroughly disagreed, and who, therefore, according to the doctrine put forward by the hon. Member, would find himself justified in acting in an illegal manner. The application of such a principle was worse in education than in other matters, because the children suffered. By all means let the local authority give notice to schools to effect necessary repairs; but it was grossly unfair not to give such schools time to comply with the notice. He was afraid that the real question here was not these minor matters, but the old dispute as regards religious matters,
    374
    and he earnestly commended to the House the view that the only possible fair solution was not to seek to exclude religion in a spirit of mutual jealousy, but, on the contrary, by a spirit of mutual tolerance to spread denominational education and to give fair and equal opportunities as far as they could to every school, whether provided or not. In order to do this they must repeal the Cowper-Temple Clause which at the present time stood in the way of any fair system of general denominational education.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he had listened to the observations of his hon. and learned friend with great interest. It appeared to him that the first part of his speech was directed to a defence of the Education Act of 1902 and not to the Motion before the House. What was the question which his hon. friend the Member for Merionethshire had obtained leave to call attention to as a definite matter of urgent public importance? It was the fact, if they rightly interpreted certain correspondence, that the Board of Education, and the education committee for the county of Merioneth, had put into operation the Education (Local Authority Default Act), 1904. He believed that they had done so. In order to raise what he thought were the relevant questions for the consideration of the House that night he was going to lay down certain facts which he had gathered, and to inquire whether the acts he complained of were or were not legally done—whether in regard to these facts the Board of Education had acted legally. He understood that the Board of Education had deducted £364 from the Parliamentary grants due in the ordinary course for the purposes of elementary education in Merionethshire. The total grants amounted to £452. This sum became due on May 1st, and the Board of Education sent £88 to the treasurer of the County Council of Merioneth, announcing that they had applied the balance to five non-provided schools in the county. The question whether the Board had acted rightly in so doing must depend upon whether the local education authority was or was not in

    375
    default. The local education authority, who acted under a scheme in accordance with Section 7 of the Act of 1902, declared that they were not in default, and that these five non-provided schools were not schools in respect to which the conditions of Section 7 of the Act had ever been fulfilled since the appointed day. His hon. and learned friend the Member for the Stretford Division had either not recently read, or had entirely forgotten, what the section said. Section 7 was probably the clearest and the least ambiguous section in the whole Act of 1902. What did it begin by saying in regard so the county council? It said—
    "The local education authority shall maintain and keep efficient all public elementary schools within their area which are necessary."
    That was clear enough. Public elementary schools were defined in other Acts of Parliament, and everybody knew what a public elementary school meant. Then the section went on to say—
    "And have the control of all expenditure required for that purpose, other than expenditure for which, under this Act, provision is to be made by the managers, but in the case of a school not provided by them only so long as the following conditions and provisions are complied with."
    Then there were a large number of conditions set out. His hon. and learned friend talked about notice of repair, but there was not a word about notice of repair in any of the conditions. He did not know where the hon. Member got these words unless it was from a diocesan conference. One of the conditions was stated in sub-section (d) and was in the following terms—
    "The managers of the school shall provide the schoolhouse free of any charge, except for the teacher's dwelling-house (if any), to the local education authority for use as a public elementary school, and shall, out of funds provided by them, keep the school in good repair, and make such alterations and improvement in the buildings as may be reasonably required by the local education authority, provided that such damage as the local authority consider to be due to fair wear and tear in the use of any room in the schoolhouse for the purpose of a public elementary school shall be made good by the local education authority."
    No notice was required. It did not need any great legal knowledge in order to interpret that sub-section. If on
    376
    the morning of the appointed day the schoolhouse was not in repair the local education authority had absolutely no duty towards a non-provided school at all, and if the school was in good repair on the appointed day, and it was allowed by the managers to fall out of repair afterwards, any obligation the local education authority had ceased automatically in accordance with the plain interpretation of this Act of Parliament. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was endeavouring to confuse the mind of the House in regard to the two distinct conditions contained in Sub-section (d). Quite apart from the question of good repair, a local education authority might go and look at a schoolhouse and say, "We do not think this a fit and proper house for an elementary school, and we are going to demand that you shall make such alterations and improvements as we think reasonable." That was exactly what had been done if it were said that notice was required on the question of repairs. It so happened that the committee in this case was so careful that before the appointed day they had actually, at their own expense, taken the trouble to investigate the conditions of every non-provided schoolhouse in Merionethshire, and, in his opinion, so far from being in default in the matter they were a little over-zealous.
    MR. DUKE: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether in fact the local education authority required any board of managers to execute any repairs or alterations?
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: Yes, they did, but he could not speak about every one of the twenty-four schools.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, they did in every one of the twenty-four.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he believed that some had become provided schools, and that there were now only twenty-one non-provided schools. But in regard to every one of those, before the appointed day surveyors and architects, appointed by the local education authority at their expense, went over the

    377
    schools, and not only gave to each body of managers a specification, not of the required repairs, but of defects in the structure, but gave notice what they thought would be reasonable alterations and improvements. His hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education, he thought, must have many letters of appeal from managers of non-provided schools in regard to this matter.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): Not so during that period.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that that led up exactly to his next point. He had the honour to place the construction of Section 7 of the Act of 1902 which he had just given before Lord Londonderry and the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education at a meeting upstairs, and it was also put by the clerk to the county council in his reply to the first threatening letter which was written by the Board of Education. Their contention was that unless on the appointed day a non-less the managers of the non-provided school complied with the reasonable requirements of the county council committee on education in regard to alterations or improvements, no obligation attached to the county council. That was a perfectly clear contention, and although the hon. Member for Stretford advanced a different view that night, that contention was not contradicted by the Board of Education. The reply dated March 31st, 1905, was—
    "Sir,—Adverting to previous correspondence respecting the claims made upon your authority by the managers of voluntary schools in the county of Merioneth, I am to say that the Board or Education regret that no satisfactory explanation of the matters in question has been offered on behalf of the authority, as required in the Board's previous letter."
    No contradiction of the previous proposition, definite, fairly urged, and leading up to the demand which he made on behalf of the committee for a fair and impartial aibitration—
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: What is the proposition?
    MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that the proposition was that the Board of Education were misconstruing the Act of Parliament; that they did not under-stand what the meaning of the words "so long as" was. The letter, which was signed by Mr. Kingsford, then went on to lay down what he thought the hon. and learned Baronet would greatly regret to affirm either in that House or in a Court of justice. It reminded those to whom it was addressed that the expenses in question were in respect of the period to November 1st, 1904, and—
    "That the reason, and the only reason, given by your authority during that period for not adequately maintaining these schools was a resolution of your county council not to provide any funds from local rates towards the maintenance of voluntary schools. It was contended by your authority during that period"
    the letter continued—
    "that these schools did not comply with Section 7, 1 D, of the Act of 1902, and that they could not, therefore, in their view legally be maintained. On the contrary, you applied for and received the Parliamentary grants in respect of these schools."
    Now, he would ask the hon. and learned Baronet, who was a great lawyer and the author of a book on contracts and another on the law and custom of the Constitution, which were in well-deserved reverence by the profession to which he belonged, whether he would maintain that the doctrine of waiver applied to a public rate-levying and rate-controlling authority? Would the hon. Baronet assert that there was any privity of contract between the county council created under the Act of 1888, the Board of Education, and the managers of non-provided schools? He understood that the hon. Baronet disclaimed that there was. He quite expected that so great an authority would not answer the question in a sense contrary to that which he was submitting to the House. What was the position? How could this public rating authority waive any condition laid down in an Act of Parliament? But if the county council of Merioneth did that—supposing the present county council resolved that the schoolhouses of non-provided schools were not in good repair, and applied the ratepayers'

    379
    money to put them in good condition— would the hon. Baronet say that that would be a good and legal act? Then why should not the hon. Baronet allow the point to be submitted to a Court of justice? However, he would not persue this process of cross-examination with the hon. Baronet. Their contention was that they were not in default, and the correspondence that had taken place showed that the Board of Education had entirely misinterpreted the Act of Parliament so far as Section 7 was concerned.
    Turning from the question whether there was or was not default, he would like to tell the Government that they were now face to face with the problems which hon. Members on that side of the House warned them about in 1902 and 1903. These county councils were corporations, and corporations had played a very great part in the history of this country. Indeed, nobody knew better than the hon. Baronet that that was true. There was once a Government that tried to destroy the City of London, and they sent all sorts of learned counsel to the Courts, and they ultimately got a writ of quo warranto, but in the very long report in the State trials the reporter added a note to this effect—
    "It does not appear that this writ was ever actually executed."
    It never was executed in the City of London, and before three years had gone by the revolution of 1688 had taken place. [Ironical MINISTERIAL laughter.] All right; they wanted another revolution in Wales, and perhaps before three years were out the hon. Baronet would be very sorry he had ever entered into this disputation with the county of Merioneth. He begged to support the Motion.
    *MR. DUKEsaid that if there was not so much talk about insurrection it would be much easier for the County Council of Merioneth and the managers of the non-provided schools to settle the matter between them. Instead of reading Section 7 of the Act of 1902, and trying to understand it and apply it, hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to be devoting their time to getting up a sort of
    380
    spurious insurrection in Wales, and in the House they talked about the sacred rights of conscience and the liberties of the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite threatened that there would be a revolution in Wales compared with which even the revolution of 1688 would be little more than a circumstance. Perhaps it could be avoided by a little consideration of the true position in Wales. The practical question was whether, unless the managers of a voluntary school did what the local authorities considered they ought to do, without any requisition as to repairs, all the grants could be stopped. Mere lawyers in matters of this kind looked at what would be the practical effect of the doctrine proposed. The contention would reduce the Act of 1902 to an absurdity. Repairs would not be done for want of money, and until they were done no money would be paid. Nobody dreamt when the Act was passed that there would be absolute harmony between the local authorities and the managers of voluntary schools, and therefore it was provided that, if any difference arose under Section 7, that difference should be decided by the Board of Education. That did not suit Gentlemen opposite. They wanted arbitrations or actions at law. Perhaps some of the ratepayers would be willing to spend their money in going to the Law Courts, but he was not sure that the minority, for whose protection the provision was required, would be willing to withdraw this matter from the plain mode of procedure that was laid down in the Act.
    But the real matter in dispute was not the state of repair of certain schools; it lay much deeper. In June, 1903, there was a proposal before the County Council of Merioneth to make an education rate of 10d., but 1½d. was struck off because the council had decided not to support the non-provided schools. That was the beginning of the present agitation. In December, 1903, the county council met and adopted certain reoslutions, and the first of them was this—
    "That this council adheres to its resolution passed at the meeting held in Dolgelly in June, 1903, not to levy a rate for the maintenance of non-provided schools within the county until"

    381
    —What? Until they were put in a state of repair? Nothing of the sort—
    "until such schools are placed fully under popular control, and all religious tests imposed upon teachers are abolished."
    Now, they could meet hon. Members on that question. It was fought out in the discussion of the Act of 1902. [HON. MEMBERS on the OPPOSITION Benches: "No, closured."] It would have to be fought out again. And this was to be kept as a bone of contention, and if necessary the education of the children was to be sacrificed in order to fight out a secular battle in which hon. Gentlemen had been engaged under a profession of interest in education. [HON. MEMBERS on the OPPOSITION Benches: "Oh."] It was not a question of painting and papering and whitewashing, but hon. Gentlemen were using the question of the repair of these schools in order to bring under review the policy of the Act of 1902, and if possible to secure its repeal. The interests of education were being sacrificed for Party considerations.
    MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had spoken with a warmth of indignation not generally shown by him in debate in the House. It must be a matter of regret to those of them who represented Welsh constituencies that the few Tory Members from Wales had not availed themselves of the opportunity of discussing this question. He was sure that the pride of himself and his hon. friends in the fewness of their number would be much greater in the next Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, who had spoken with ostentatious ignorance—he thought it was an exhibition of humour— would not enable them to get nearer a settlement by suggesting that Welsh Members were fighting something under a profession of interest in education when they were really animated by some other motive.
    The operation of the Act of 1902, and the subsequent Act of 1904, proved, in the main, what the Welsh Members told the Government at the time, that they could not in the long run legislate successfully against the wishes of the people they were legislating for.
    382
    Now, it must be remembered that the Default Act was a supplementary remedy. There was another remedy, that of mandamus. Why did not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education put a mandamus in operation? The hon. Baronet was not only a legislator, but an administrator, and surely he could do something to settle some of these differences of opinion between the local education authority and the managers of non-provided schools. There were five schools where the difficulty had arisen, and as he understood it the sum of £364 had been deducted in respect of those five schools. The average attendance thereat was 17, 24, 78, 56, and 14, making a total average attendance in the five schools of 189 children. The hon. Baronet had deducted nearly £2 per child for the children in average attendance. The total grant earned by those schools in 1902 was £385, therefore he had deducted a sum very nearly equal to the total sum earned in Government grants by those five schools in 1902. He ventured to ask whether the hon. Baronet was prepared to say that any one of those five schools was in a fit and proper state of repair, and would he say that all five were in a fit and proper state of repair, because he could not look at the Report without coming to the conclusion that they were in a grave state of want of repair. Would the hon. Baronet also say that the whole sum spent in 1902 on those five schools exceeded £15? They had taken a strong standpoint on this question. The Act operated harshly on all parties. It was a harsh thing to levy rates in order to support those schools, which were Church schools in management and in doctrine; these were Church schools so far as the managers were concerned, and yet were schools provided for the education of Nonconformist children, partly supported by rates paid by Nonconformist parents.
    He asked the House to say that the Welsh people had taken a proper attitude—and what the Prime Minister would call a conscientious attitude—upon this question. By his speech of 15th July, 1904, the Prime Minister showed that he had formed a conscientious opinion on this question. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had formed a

    383
    conscientious conviction upon it, but, in any event, why were they not also to be allowed conscientious opinions in the matter? He asked the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the local authority not only had no duty, but it had no right to maintain these school out of the rates. It was a waste of public money to support them. He would also ask him to say whether in each of these five schools it was not the fact that they were out of repair and required a great deal of alteration to make them fit for the children. The authorities were doing their best for the children by insisting that fit and proper schools should be provided for them. He submitted that they were under no obligation to maintain these schools until they had been put into a fit and proper state of repair, and that there had been no default on their part within the meaning of the Act.
    LIEUT.-COLONEL PRYCE-JONESsaid the matter at issue was a very small one. The minority in Wales had done its best to urge the majority in the county council to administer the Act fairly and justly, but they claimed that the majority had not administered it as they should have done. The question was whether the House of Commons was to be omnipotent or whether the county council majorities were to take its place. Only the other day a deputation waited on the Minister of Education, and the gist of the whole proceedings was to be found in the question asked by Lord Londonderry as to whether if the schools were put in a fit and proper state of repair the authorities would maintain them. He was sorry to say that his hon. friends opposite refused to give a definite answer to that question. The minority were perfectly prepared not to ask for rate-aid if their schools were not in reasonable repair. They were perfectly prepared to abide by the consequences of the Act, but he for one would never have sat silent while the Bill of 1902 passed through the House if he had had any idea that his hon. friends opposite would have taken the extreme course they had adopted in this matter. They knew they were in the minority and that they were in the hands of the majority, but they never dreamed that the majority would have tyrannized
    384
    over them as they had done. He appealed to the House of Commons to support the Churchmen and Nonconformists, the Conservatives and Liberals, of Wales who desired that the Act should be fairly, squarely, and justly administered in the Principality. He asked the House to uphold its omnipotence, its power, and its influence, and not to allow the county councils of Wales to set so bad an example to future legislation, and future reforms.
    Throughout the debate on the Bill in 1902 hon. Members opposite fought hard for what they wanted, viz., control, and the Prime Minister and those who comprised the Government at that time stated that they were given control by the Bill. Hon. Members then would not allow that they had that power, but he appealed to the common sense and equity of the House, and asked whether sufficient control had not been given. The authorities could afford if they liked to administer the Act justly, and they could get almost everything they wanted because their control was so great. They had the power of putting in any number of pin-pricks, and all they had to do was to wait and to be tolerant in the matter. He, personally, was not in favour of any reform of the Education Act until a fair trial had been given to it. He asked hon. Members opposite whether in the event of their Party coming into power they would be in a better position than they enjoyed under the present Government. He asserted that their position would be more difficult because their Government would have the support of the Irish Members, whilst the Churchmen on their own side would be against them. He thanked the House for a fair hearing, and hoped for the sake of the House of Commons, and for the sake of justice, hon. Members would do all in their power to induce in a friendly way the Welsh county councils to administer the Act.
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he certainly had no reason to complain of the tone in which the mover and seconder of the adjournment had introduced this subject. If he failed to reply to all the legal questions which were addressed to him by the hon. and learned Member for the Swansea Disrict it was because he deemed it inadvisable to try and answer

    385
    off-hand legal conundrums carefully prepared, of a somewhat recondite and academic character, and not specially bearing on the subject before them. He assured those who had spoken on the other side of the House that it was with no light heart, and not without a very grave sense of responsibility, that the Board of Education came to the conclusion that they must—in response to the demands of managers for the repayment to them of moneys which they had expended, and which ought to have been provided for them by the local education authority—repay to the managers the moneys so expended, and must make the corresponding deduction from the payment which would otherwise have been made to the local education authority. He had hoped that matters were settling down in Wales and that the Education Act was being administered throughout the Principality. Even in Merioneth itself they had had every reason to hope that the Act was being administered, and it had been since the late autumn of last year. The particular period to which the transactions under consideration referred was the period from the end of September, 1903, when the appointed day for Merioneth came, until the end of October, 1904. During that period arrears accumulated which should have been met by the local education authority, and for payment of which managers made constant and urgent appeals to the Board of Education.
    A good deal had been said on the subject of repair, and he was asked whether they had had appeals from managers on that subject during the period in question. The correspondence which passed between the Board of Education and the local education authority during that period consisted simply of a reference to the local authority of the demands of managers for the maintenance due to them, and in response enclosures from the local education authority of resolutions which they had passed to the effect that they would raise no rate in order to assist in the maintenance of voluntary schools. During that time the Parliamentary grants were applied for and obtained by the local education authority in respect of those schools, but nothing else than the
    386
    amount of those grants—which when paid to the local authority passed at once into the general county funds—no other payments were made to the managers of voluntary schools in Merionethshire. Something had been said regarding the surveyors' reports. It was perfectly true that before the appointed day the County Council of Merioneth went to the expense of having all the schools, voluntary and council, surveyed throughout the area, and the report made by the surveyor to the local education authority was, in the case of these schools, forwarded to the managers of the schools, but no comment was made, no suggestion that any of the requirements should be put into effect, whether they were for alterations and improvements, or whether they were for repairs. There had been nothing throughout the whole period with which he was dealing to suggest that the subject of repairs was present to the mind of the local education authority as a reason for not maintaining the schools. It was not until December of last year that the local education authority, writing to the Board to say that they were now maintaining the schools, announced that they should hold themselves entitled to discontinue the maintenance if reasonable requirements for alterations and improvements were not carried into effect.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: Was it the local education authority that wrote the letter?
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid it was either the authority or their recognised agent. Nothing was then said about repairs. What they had before them during that time was the announcement by the local authority that it would raise no rate for the maintenance of voluntary schools. There was consequently a grave doubt in the minds of managers as to whether they would be maintained by the local authority. There was no request made through them either for repairs, or for alterations and improvements, as any condition of maintenance; and at the same time there was a demand, or rather a request, signed by the representative of the local education authority, to the Board of Education for the Parliamentary grants, which were only due if the

    387
    schools complied with the requirements of the Education Act under Section 7, 1B, by which managers were required to keep schools in good repair. The local authorities, therefore, admitted that these schools were in good repair. Without labouring a point of law as to whether the question of repairs was waived by the local authority, it seems a matter of honesty and common sense that if any one obtains money by certifying to the existence of certain facts he could not turn round afterwards and deny those facts. But as to the fact of repairs he was prepared to state, in contradiction, he was afraid, to what had been alleged by hon. Members on the other side of the House, that with two exceptions—one certainly and one doubtful—the voluntary schools throughout Merionethshire were in a fit state for the reception of children for the purposes of elementary education without risk to their health, comfort, or convenience. The exceptions were Festiniog, which was condemned, and the school near Llanelltyd, which was under consideration, for there was a question of whether the managers could carry out on the site of the school the repairs and alterations which would be necessary to turn it into a suitable school, or whether it would be better to abandon the school and have a new one erected on a new site.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On whose authority did they come to that conclusion?
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: We inquired into the matter ourselves.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Was any notice given to the local authority that an inquiry was being instituted? This is the first we have heard if it.
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the county council surveyor went round and surveyed the schools and reported on them, and when this question arose the Board of Education thought it desirable that they should satisfy themselves as to the condition of the schools, and they had done so. With regard to the Holy-well School in Flintshire, which had been referred to, all he could say was that the
    388
    Board of Education had been waiting for, he thought, months to get an answer from the local education authority to inquiries addressed to them as to what they thought desirable in respect of the school. He was bound to say that, as regarded the bulk of the council schools and of the voluntary schools in Merioneth, they were alike fit for the purposes of public elementary schools, although they were both susceptible of improvement. He had read the reports of the county surveyors, and they did not bear out the description given by the hon. Member for Anglesey. He had also statements of what had been done by managers of the schools during the past few months, and the schools were being put into a condition which would satisfy the requirements of the local education authority, and he was not aware that in every case the recommendations of the surveyor of the county council had been carried out in respect of the council schools. He was quite ready to admit, however, that Merioneth had done more than some Welsh local authorities in the way of putting its council schools into a decent and proper condition. The question of what was meant by good repair must surely be a matter of circumstance and of the particular requirements which the building was intended to meet. They must ask the plain question. Could the children remain for the necessary number of hours in the school in reasonable comfort and in conditions which were not detrimental to health? He was satisfied that in all the schools except the two to which he had referred the children could be taught without risk to their health, comfort, or convenience.
    Then what were the rights of the local authority? The local education authority was clearly not entitled to say that because a window was broken or one or two tiles were off the roof, or the walls needed a coat of paint or a door was off its hinges the school must go off the list for Parliamentary grants. These things could be remedied in twenty-four hours or a few days, and reasonable notice must be given and time allowed. Was it possible to have two standards of good repair—one for voluntary schools and one for council schools? He was

    389
    afraid that some of the local authorities in Wales would be put to very considerable expense in the provision of new schools if the Board of Education were to treat their schools as they proposed to treat the voluntary schools. Were there two standards? He believed that in Merioneth itself some of the recommendations of the surveyor had not been carried out in the council schools. He turned to the neighbouring county of Denbigh, where the council surveyed the voluntary schools before the appointed day. It had not yet appointed anyone to survey the council schools. Last year the Board had a long discussion with the local authority and the managers of a public elementary voluntary school at Pontypridd. The Board of Education determined that some alterations must be carried out as required by the local authority, but recognised the great difficulty of doing so on the existing site of the school. He went to see the school himself, and came to the conclusion that, owing to its position, its structure, lighting, and ventilation, it was quite impossible to make a decent school of it, and that it must be abandoned. It was transferred to the council, and the first, thing the local authority did was to write to the Board of Education and request that the school should be allowed to remain in statu for two years.
    In the county of Carnarvon there were at least twenty-five schools concerning which the Board of Education had been in communication from time to time with the local authority; and there were several schools which were seriously at fault in respect of repair and sanitary condition, and the Board of Education had the greatest difficulty in obtaining any attention from the local education authority concerned in respect of these schools. He would give an account of one case. The inspector having reported offices to be offensive, the playground unfit for drilling exercises, unsatisfactory ventilation in girls' cloak-room and lighting of infants' room, signs of damp on school walls, and minor defects, the Board inquired on January 27th, 1905, of the county council what steps they were taking, but had received no reply. In a second case strictures on the premises had been passed in inspector's
    390
    reports for the last few years. In 1902 he reported that another class-room was needed, and that the present partition was unsatisfactory for purposes of lighting and supervision and needed alteration, that rooms were insufficiently lighted, walls damp, and the cloakroom not ventilated. These remarks were repeated in October, 1904, and on January 25th, 1905, the Board requested information as to council's proposals. After six weeks delay they were informed that the council's architect had been instructed to prepare plans of the alterations necessary. In another case the inspector reported that the playground was in an unsatisfactory state, mud and water had collected at the entrance to the offices, and that a drain was not in good order. The Board requested that immediate steps should be taken, and after a delay of three weeks the local education authority replied that, owing to extreme pressure of work in their architect's department, they could not attend to this matter. In regard to another case under the control of the Carnarvon County Council, in his report for the year 1903 the county council were informed by the inspector that the ventilating and warming were unsatisfactory, while the floor was worn and the drains required attention. He referred to the report of the county surveyor for further defects in the premises and equipment. On November 24th, 1904, His Majesty's inspector reported that no steps had been taken to remedy the defects in the premises. On February 8th, 1905, the Board asked to be informed of the proposals of the county council for remedying these defects, and were told a month later that the decision of that body had been deferred to their next meeting. On March 10th the Board sent the county council a special report on the premises. No answer had been received. He would not follow the history of Carnarvonshire further, but he imight remind the hon. Member for Carnarvon the next time he indulged in rhetorical expressions about pure dogma and foul drains, that he must recollect that the absence of dogma was not inconsistent with very unsatisfactory sanitary conditions.

    391
    Was this outcry about repairs genuine. When Lord Londonderry asked the deputation from Merionethshire whether if the premises had been in good repair the school would have been maintained, no answer was given.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the question was put to his client behind his back. He said one county council could not bind other county council any more than this Parliament was going to bind the next.
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the question was addressed to a deputation representing the Merioneth County Council, and no answer was received. It was true that the deputation had the assistance of the hon. and learned Member, but that did not close their mouths altogether. He asked hon. Members opposite whether this was not a somewhat unworthy pretext for declining to carry out their legal obligations to maintain the voluntary schools. He did not desire to minimise the religious difficulty. He knew the Nonconformists considered they had grievances under the Education Act. But he asked them to remember that they were as nothing compared with the grievances suffered by many members of the English Church and all Roman Catholics before the Act of 1902. Did they seriously think that the cause of religion, or the cause of education, or even the cause of political Party, was served by making these innocent and unfortunate children the victims of their endeavour to starve out or to distress the voluntary schools?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the hon. Baronet, in replying to an interpellation about county Merioneth, had entered into a long disquisition as to the state of the schools in the county of Carnarvon. Some hon. Members seemed to think that was relevant, and if it was relevant he was prepared with an answer, for he happened to know something of the county of Carnarvon, and he would tell the House exactly what the facts were. An impartial report was made by the surveyor on the state of the provided and non-provided schools, and for each class of schools £12,000 was required for
    392
    repairs. The county council instantly put in hand the repairs for their schools and at the last meeting which he attended they resolved to borrow £17,000 for the purpose, £5,000 more than the surveyor's estimate. Of course the money could not be laid out at once, but it had been raised. That was how the county council of Carnarvonshire carried out its legel obligations with regard to repairs. But what had the non-provided schools done? The managers of the non-provided schools had only spent £2,000, and the county council up to the present had not served them with notice and only discontinued one school, showing considerable indulgence to managers who had only carried out a sixth of the required repairs, and this indulgence had been requited by a sneer, without any information as to the facts. The other day an attack was made upon the action of the Carnarvonshire County Council by a rather foolish person at a Church bazaar, and instantly the Church members of the education committee got up and protested, saying that the county council had treated the Church schools exceedingly well. But after the way in which the hon. Baronet had spoken of their conduct they would know how much gratitude to expect for any indulgence they might show to the non-provided schools. However, that matter was absolutely irrelevant, as the question raised had reference to Merioneth.
    The Board of Education had put into operation the Coercion Act to compel Merioneth to obey the law. How had the Board themselves obeyed the law? Eighteen months or two years ago notices were served on all the managers of non-provided schools in Merioneth that their school buildings were out of repair, and with the notices were particulars of the repairs and alterations demanded by the local education authority. The authority was not entitled to maintain the schools if they were out of repair, but the hon. Baronet had evaded hat question. It was a condition precedent in his own Act of Parliament. It was all very well to say it was a question of consideration and common-sense when it was a question of compelling managers to obey the law, but when it was a matter affecting Nonconformists

    393
    it was the law that had to be enforced. The default had not arisen in respect of what had happened in the last few months but in respect of the time when then took not the slightest steps to put their schools in repair. The hon. Baronet admitted that since November salaries had been paid. It was prior to November the default arose, and that was the time when no repairs were executed. The hon. Baronet said he was satisfied the schools were not out of repair, but how had he satisfied himself? How did the Board of Education carry out its own Act? It was a Court of Appeal, and should act as an impartial tribunal between the education authority and the managers, but how had it done this? In the absence of the local education authority, and without notice to surveyor or medical officer, the Board sent down Mr. Kingsford, a clerk in the Department, who sat in judgment on the reports of surveyor, architect, and medical officer, told the managers to take no notice of the requisitions of the education authority, and just indicated to them the sort of thing he considered satisfactory. He asked the Prime Minister whether that was his opinion of the way in which the Act should be administered. Did he think it satisfactory that a clerk should go down to give an opinion on an architectural question, or on the sanitary condition of a building, and reverse the decision of experts?
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that Mr. Kingsford merely accompanied the inspector for convenience of more direct communication with the Board at Whitehall.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked how that improved matters. If there was a dispute between the local authority and the Board of Education on questions of structure and sanitation, was an inspector—not a sanitary inspector, but an inspector of schools—to decide? If that was the opinion of the Government, he was not surprised that local authorities were beginning to defy them. It simply showed that they were making no attempt at all to administer the Act fairly as between parties. The plain
    394
    truth was that the Board of Education themselves had taken no trouble to compel these managers to administer the Act. The Board had insisted upon a report on the provided schools, but they had never made any investigation with regard to the voluntary schools of Carnarvon. They were simply spies on the provided schools. He was not going to say, and never had said, that this was purely a question of repairs. The only point he put with regard to repairs was that, if the Board of Education were going to insist on local authorities administering the law, they must respect the law themselves. The Board of Education had received many reports in the past from their own inspectors as to the insanitary condition of voluntary schools in Carnarvonshire. They had taken no notice of them, but went on paying the grants. On the authority of the late Secretary to the Board of Education, they had it that many reports adverse to the schools were sent back to be re-written, and that had never been denied. And now the Board of Education lectured the local authorities in Wales and elsewhere on the duty of administering the law. He was waiting to see what they were going to do with regard to the schools in London.
    After all, a much deeper question was involved. When the Act was being carried through the House the Prime Minister was warned of the difficulties he would have in getting the Act administered. He sapped the moral authority of the law by the conditions under which he carried it. No one had done more than he to bring the law and its administration into contempt in the last few years. He knew at the time that this Act was not demanded by the people. He had no mandate for carrying it. The people were repudiating it. On the authority of the Member for West Birmingham it was the most unpopular Act which this Government had passed, and that was saying a great deal. Was the Prime Minister in these circumstances not injuring the moral authority of the law by enforcing an Act of this kind in every particular when he knew perfectly well that, in the course of another year or two, the decision of this House of

    395
    Commons would be reversed upon the point? ["Oh."] Could any hon. Member deny that? Only last week the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said it was a most unpopular Act, and attributed most of the defeats of the Government at by-elections to the feeling against it. He sincerely regretted the Prime Minister should not have shown a little more restraint with regard to that Act.
    No one had been anxious to precipitate this strife in Wales. The responsible leaders of the Church Party did heir best to persuade the Board of Education not to press it, and the Board of Education had done so simply at the request of the more irresponsible section of their supporters in Wales. The hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs was the only Welsh Tory Member who had had the courage to speak in support of this Act, but even he did not appeal to the Government to put it into operation. Why had they done it? They knew perfectly well what would happen. If the Act were put into operation the local authority would be called upon to collect the deficiency. How were the local authority to collect the deficiency? Did the Government imagine that a Nonconformist county council like Merioneth were going to put their own friends in gaol on a matter in which they themselves felt strongly, and in regard to which they deeply sympathised with the conscientious convictions of their constituents? It was a thing which no Government ought to impose upon a local authority. If they did it there was but one course open to the local authorities. There would be no defiance of the law. The local authorities would simply say, "You must administer the Act yourself and collect the rates yourself." Would the Government do it? Certainly no county council in Wales would ever undertake so serious a responsibility. That was not a defiance of the law. It was simply a recognition that the Government was asking something at their hands which no Government had a right to ask of any municipality. No law in this country had any authority apart from the sanction of the people. ["Oh."] Did hon. Members really think that they could carry Acts of Parliament in defiance
    396
    of the people? ["Yes."] All he could say was that it was contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and opposed to the liberties of the people, and he regretted that the Prime Minister should not have exercised his influence to restrain the Board of Education in this matter. It would have been only a matter of twelve months at the outside, but he had declined to do so.
    The Prime Minister knew that he had no right to pass that Act after the declaration at the last election that Nonconformists could vote for the Government because nothing touching any controversial question, apart from South Africa, would be dealt with by them. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who alone got the Government elected, gave that pledge, and the people accepted it as a pledge given on behalf of the Government. The Prime Minister himself at Manchester and elsewhere declared that the South African War was the sole question before the electorate. Supposing the Leaders of the Opposition had gone to the country declaring that the misconduct of the war was the only question at issue, promising that no controversial questions should be dealt with, and then, having secured a majority, abolished the denominational schools, what would have been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite? He apologised to his right hon. friends for suggesting, even for the sake of argument, that they could be guilty of anything so thoroughly dishonourable. But the Government, having secured office by such tactics, had taken advantage of it to pass an Act of this kind, and were now trying to enforce it by coercion. He regretted that they should do it.
    They were bringing all this trouble upon a county which had made more sacrifices for education than any other county in the Kingdom. Although it was one of the poorest counties in the Kingdom, it had spent more money per head of the population for education than any other. Its provision for secondary schools was higher than that of Prussia, and treble that of any other English county. Most of this had been done by voluntary contributions and by their rating themselves, and to taunt the people of Merioneth with disregarding the interests of the education

    397
    of the children was unworthy, and certainly such a taunt ought not to come from anybody who knew nothing about the circumstances. This county had made the most exemplary sacrifices for education, and it was the most law-abiding county in the whole of this kingdom. ["Oh, oh!"] There was no county in the country where the Judges had less to do when they came down there than the county of Merioneth. The present head of the Board of Education had begun to dictate to a county like Merioneth what it should do in respect of the education of its children. He ventured to say that the Government had done nothing more foolish, nothing more illegal, than the action it was now taking. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"] He submitted to hon. Members opposite that they were entitled to a full investigation of this case. The Government were putting into operation an Act which was not even debated in this House, and as they were not allowed to debate the Act, surely they were entitled to debate its administration. Even the hon. Baronet opposite had refused to answer some simple Questions which had been put to him, and he had been obliged to admit that these schools were out of repair during the whole time that the county was in default; and yet he was putting into operation this Act when he knew perfectly well that if there was any illegality it was in giving grants to those schools at all. It was useless appealing to the Government.
    The hon. and learned Member for Stretford had asked for the suggestion of a compromise and of terms. The Welsh Members offered the identical terms which the hon. and learned Member had suggested that evening. The laity of the Church and the Bishop of the diocese were prepared to accept them, and only the clergy refused. Yet the Government were creating strife in a county without the slightest investigation of the circumstances. They asked for an inquiry, and what did they get? The Government sent down a clerk from the Board of Education to find out what was the minimum of repair that could be done. Had the Government ever inquired into the circumstances? Did they know the conditions? In one school, out of the entire total of children in attendance, only six were Church children, and in another school only three were Church children. In a third school there were only two Church children, and in a fourth there was not a single Church child at all. And yet there could not be any Nonconformists on the foundation management, they were disqualified like lunatics, bankrupts, and criminals. It was monstrous that an Act of this kind should be put into operation, and he was glad that his hon. friend had called the attention of the House to the question.
    Question put.
    The House divided.—Ayes, 113; Noes, 211. (Division List No. 159.)

    AYES

    Allen, Charles P.

    Crooks, William

    Harwood, George

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H-

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Benn, John Williams

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Brigg, John

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Johnson, John

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Edwards, Frank

    Joicey, Sir James

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

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

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Emmott, Alfred

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Burns, John

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Burt, Thomas

    Fenwick, Charles

    Kitson, Sir James

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Lamont, Norman

    Caldwell, James

    Findlay, Alexauder (Lanark, N E

    Langley, Batty

    Cameron, Robert

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Levy, Maurice

    Cawley, Frederick

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Lloyd-George, David

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Lough, Thomas

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Runciman, Walter

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Shackleton, David James

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    M'Crae, George

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Slack, John Bamford

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

    Norman, Henry

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Parrott, William

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

    Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

    Partington, Oswald

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Perks, Robert William

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

    Rea, Russell

    Toulmin, George

    Riokett, J. Compton

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Mr.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Osmond Williams and Herbert Roberts.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Wallace, Robert

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Denny, Colonel

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

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

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Doughty, Sir George

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Arrol, Sir William

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir WilliamHart

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N R

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

    Balcarres, Lord

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Balfour, Rt, Hn. A. J. (Manchr.

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

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

    Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Fison, Frederick William

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    Lowe, Francis William

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Forster, Henry William

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Gardner, Ernest

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

    Bingham, Lord

    Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-

    Malcolm, Ian

    Bond, Edward

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

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

    Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middle'x

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshr.

    Brassey, Albert

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

    Milvain, Thomas

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

    Gretton, John

    Montagu, G. (Huntington)

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

    Bull, William James

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Butcher, John George

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Campbell J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

    Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw H.

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshr.

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Chapman, Edward

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robt. T.

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Percy, Earl

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

    Howard, J. Kent (Faversham)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

    Purvis, Robert

    400

    401

    Pym, C, Guy

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

    Welby, Lt., Col. ACE. (Taunton)

    Randles, John S.

    Spear, John Ward

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

    Rankin, Sir James

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton and. Lyne

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Stanley, Edw. James (Somerset)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Willougbby de Eresby, Lord

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

    Stock, James Henry

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Wylie, Alexander

    Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse

    Tuff, Charles

    Wyudham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Younger, William

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Tumour, Viscount

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Vincent, Col. SirC. E. H. (Sheffi'd

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Smith,RtHnJ.Parker (Lanarks

    Walrond. Rt. Hn. Sir William H

    Question put, and agreed to.

    NAVAL LANDS (VOLUNTEERS) BILL.
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. CALDWELLsaid this Bill had been introduced without any discussion whatever. It was a very short Bill, but it seemed to him to have far-reaching consequences. The Military Lands Act of 1892, which it was now sought to apply to Naval Volunteers, was an Act which enabled money to be borrowed for military lands to be used for Volunteer sheds, ranges, halls, etc. Those lands might be acquired by the Secretary of State on his own account for military purposes. He thought the Bill now before them would place a heavy burden upon the localities concerned. Assuming that a locality was loyal enough to raise a considerable number of Volunteers, then instead of meeting the expense out of the Imperial purse as they ought to do, they were now proposing to place the cost upon the locality. It should be borne in mind that they were now proposing to make the Volunteer force practically part of the Regular Army. It seemed to him very strange that they should now be introducing legislation which would impose a burden upon certain localities which happened to be so loyal as to undertake the raising of Volunteers. He agreed that at one time there
    402
    was something to be said for asking county councils and borough councils to do something in this direction, because then the force was essentially a Volunteer force, and it was not so much mixed up with the organisation of the Army as it was at the present time. If land was taken for naval purposes, for the construction of a battery, this Bill would enable money to be borrowed on the security of the grants which Parliament gave to the Volunteers, whether naval or military.
    And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)said that the first order for Tuesday would be the adjourned debate on the Post Office (Telephone Agreement). [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] He had informed the hon. Member who had an Amendment down as well as the hon. Member for Leeds. He did not think the discussion would take long, and it would be followed by the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
    MR. DALZIELexpressed surprise at the change in the order of business proposed. Everybody expected the Finance Bill would be the first order. What was the urgency for the appointment of this Committee? What was the reason which had induced the right hon. Gentleman to put forward the appointment of this Committee to-morrow? Such a Committee could not alter the agreement and it had simply got to say that it agreed with it. He thought that to appoint the Committee at all was a waste of the time of the House. What was the real urgency of this course? Was it because the Government were having a general sweep up in view of a general election? If the right hon. Gentleman would say that was the reason he should be very glad to assist him, but unless he gave them some satisfactory reason he thought he would find that it would take considerably more time than he was anticipating.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid it was rather inconvenient that such short notice should be given of the fixing of a day for the discussion of a subject in which such an extraordinary amount of interest was taken by the great commercial bodies outside the House. He should have right hon. Gentleman would have given them two or three days notice at least. Surely the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had been drawn to the resolution passed by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on this subject, and the very strong opinion entertained in Manchester and Liverpool as to the composition of this Committee.
    MR. KEARLEYsaid it would have facilitated matters if the right hon. Gentleman had given adequate notice of his intention to take this question of the appointment of this Committee. By the course suggested there would actually be no opportunity given to them
    404
    of either amending or rejecting the agreement. He would suggest that it should be postponed until Monday. If this course was persisted in it might lead to a prolonged debate, and the discussion on the Finance Bill would be curtailed in consequence.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTONjoined in the appeal that the right hon. Gentleman should allow a clear day for the general discussion of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. Owing to the discussion of the Motion for adjournment that evening, the Finance Bill had not been reached. He hoped the general discussion on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill would not be curtailed, as would undoubtedly be the case if the Telephone Agreement was put down as the first order to-morrow.
    MR. MCKENNAreminded the right hon. Gentleman that notice had already been given that it was the intention of the Government to take the Finance Bill to-morrow and then the Rating Bill. Now, when the House was practically empty, it was proposed without any notice to take the Telephone Agreement. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would facilitate the business of the House if he adhered to the arrangement originally made, upon the authority of which a large number of Members had gone home expecting to find that the first business to-morrow would be the Finance Bill. He did not think the course suggested was treating them, quite fairly.
    *SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsuggested that a Question should be put to the Leader of the House next day, and that an agreement might then be come to.
    Adjourned at thirteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.