Commons Sitting of 26 February 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

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

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means, reported, That, after conferring with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Bills, under the Private Legisla-
  1398
  tion Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, should be first considered, they had determined that the following Bills should originate in the House of Lords, viz.:—Buckhaven Dock; Electric Supply Corporation; General Accident, Fire, and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited; Glasgow Corporation; Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water; Royal Bank of Scotland.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Basingstoke Gas Bill; Falmouth Gas Bill; London and North Western Railway (Supperannuation Fund) Bill; Plymouth and North Devon Direct Railway (Abandonment) Bill; Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Bill. Read a second time, and committed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—
  "That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the petiton of 'Restaurant Keepers, etc.,' the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
  "That, in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, etc.) Bill, petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the petition of the 'Wanstead Urban District Council,' the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
  "That, in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill, petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the petition of the 'Wanstead Urban District Council,' the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
  "That, in the case of the Barry Railway, petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that so much of Clause 27 as proposes to authorise the Company to take and use the waters of the Rhydwaedlyd, Nant-cwm-Nsfydd and Nant-y-Briwnant brooks be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the

  1399
  Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with.' "
  "That, in the case of the Rawtenstall Corporation, petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on the condition that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 10, 11, and 11a are struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with.'"
  "That, in the case of the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways, petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
  "That, in the case of the Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers, petition for leave to deposit a petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their petition for Bill."
  Resolutions agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  ROYAL HIBERNIAN ACADEMY.
  Petitions against removal of academic functions; from Dublin and other places; and, Notting Hill and other places; to lie upon the Table.
  WILLIAMS, THOMAS.
  Petition of Thomas Williams, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.,
  WAGES AND EFFECTS OF DECEASED SEAMEN.
  Return [presented 13th February]; to be printed. [No. 51.].
  UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
  Copy presented, of Report on the state of the Finances of the University made by the University Court, for the year 1905–6 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 52.].
  UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Edinburgh for the year 1905–6 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 53.].
  TRADE REPORT (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3746 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
  Copy presented, of Estimates for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March 1908, together with a Copy of the Memorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury relating thereto [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 54.].

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Irish Land Commission (Account), Copy of Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the Account of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended 31st March 1906 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 55.].
  Church Temporalities (Ireland), Copy of Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the Account of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland for the year ended 31st March, 1906 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 56.].

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE TRIAL OF ELECTION PETITIONS, 1906–7.
  Return ordered, "showing how the £3,598 voted on the Estimates for 1906–7 for the Trial of Election Petitions has been expended."—(Mr. Morton.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Coal Expenditure of British and Foreign Navies.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the coal expenditure, actual or approximate, of the Navies of Great Britain, the United States, Germany, and France for the years 1900 to 1906 respectively; and what is the sum estimated for 1907 for Great Britain.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). It is not considered in the interests of the public service to give any details of coal consumption in the British Navy. Neither France nor Germany publish any statement of the quantity of coal purchased annually.

  Increase of Pay for Chargemen in Dockyards.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, considering that the duties of chargemen of shipwrights, fitters, joiners and other trades in the Royal Dockyards, are in every way identical, their Lordships can see their way clear to extend the recent concession of 6d. per day increase of pay, granted to a percentage of chargemen of shipwrights upon their 1906 petition, to all other trades.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I cannot admit my hon. friend's suggestion that the duties of all chargemen of trades are identical. The Admiralty are unable to extend the recent concession in the manner proposed.

  Rent Fixing Applications.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of applications for the fixing of first and second term rents respectively awaiting hearing by the Sub-Commissioners; the number of appeals lodged with the Head Commission; and when it is estimated the respective cases will be disposed of.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On 31st January, 1907, the number of fair rent applications pending before the Sub-Commission Courts was 6,932, namely, 2,962 for first-term rents and 3,970, for second-term rents. The number of appeals pending on the same date was 7,367, namely 1,804 first-term rents and 5,563 second-term rents. It is estimated that all these cases will be disposed of within two years.

  Arabic Language in Egyptian Schools.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, by the Egyptian Government's decree of the 22nd June, 1893, it was enacted that the Arabic language should be the medium for teaching all subjects in the Egyptian schools; whether the decree has been abrogated; and whether the scarcity of teachers, now alleged as a reason for the lack of instruction in Arabic, has been the result of the policy pursued by the British control in Egypt in disregard of the decree.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Grey.) The decree in question provides that the programmes of the Egyptian Government schools shall include instruction in Arabic in as large a measure as possible, in order to ensure a thorough knowledge of that language, and that no certificate of primary or secondary studies, nor any definitive certificate shall be granted by the Ministry of Public Instruction to a candidate, whatever his knowledge of other matters, unless he can show that he possesses knowledge of the Arabic language as laid down in the official programmes of the Government. I have no information that this decree has been abrogated. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I beg to refer him to the Answer given to the Question on this subject asked by him on the 21st instant.†

  The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
  †See (4) Debates, clxix., 1036.

  1403
  whether he is aware that a charge of £E11,964 has for many years past appeared in the Egyptian Budget in respect of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; whether he will state the respective items which together make up the above expenditure; whether he can state by what sums the expenditure under this head has been increased during the past five years; and whether, seeing that the Foreign Affairs of Egypt are, for all practical purposes, conducted, and controlled by the British Government, he will direct the British Agent to advise the Egyptian Government to reduce considerably the amount above-mentioned.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Grey.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the published Budgets of the Egyptian Government which will provide him with all the information he desires. I must demur entirely to the statement made in the last sentence of this Question. Owing to the International situation in Egypt, the Egyptian Ministry for Foreign Affairs has an exceptionally large number of questions to deal with, and whatever control is exercised by the British representative in Egypt is of a general character; it does not take the place of the daily administrative work, and the existence of a separate department of the Egyptian Government is absolutely necessary.

  Concessions Granted to the late Mr. Knox Brown.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many and what mining or prospecting concessions were granted to the late Mr. Knox Brown by the Egyptian and Soudan Governments, or either of them; what were the dates when such concessions were granted, and for what periods; where were they situated, and what area did each comprise; were any and what companies formed, and at what dates, to work such concessions; what was the share capital of each, and what was the nominal value of such shares; to what extent were the shares in each of such companies subscribed for; how many of such companies, and which, are at the
  1404
  present time working such concessions; what are the dividends paid by each since their inception; and what are the respective values of their shares.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Grey). I have no information on the subject. The concessions date several years back. Much of the information desired by the hon. Member would be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain; and, as the subject appears to be of little public interest, I do not consider that I should be justified in putting the Egyptian Government to the trouble and expense of drawing up a Report on the matter.

  Payment of Forced Labourers in Fiji.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS (Wolverhampton, W.): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that forced labour is being employed for the construction of a government road between Suva and Navua, Fiji, payment to each man amounting to about 4s. per annum; and that the Governor, in view of the fact that the pay was inadequate to provide the natives with clothing, decreed that they should have freedom of choice of work during November and December so that they might obtain wages to buy clothing; whether the natives in one district were prosecuted for claiming this privilege and were fined with the alternative of a month's imprisonment; and will he say what action he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has no information on the subject, but will ask the Governor for a Report.

  Amendment and Consolidation of Poor Law Statutes and Local Government Board Orders.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number to date received by the Local Government Board of resolutions passed, or petitions presented, in favour of the consolidation and amendment of the Poor Law Statutes and Local Government

  1405
  Board Orders by boards of guardians and other local authorities in England and Wales since December, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The number is 231.

  Issue and Payment of Postal Orders in Great Britain and Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state, the respective total amounts of postal orders issued and paid in Ireland and in Great Britain for the last period for which the figures are available; and what percentage of the Irish payments was composed of postal orders issued at post offices in Great Britain, and vice versa.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The total values of the postal orders issued during the financial year 1905–6, the latest period for which the figures are available, were £36,239,000 and£l,780,000 in Great Britain and Ireland respectively. During the same period the payments of postal orders amounted to £37,212,000 and £1,646,000. No record is kept of the payment in Ireland of orders issued at post offices in Great Britain or vice versa.

  Post Office Savings Bank Business in Ireland and Great Britain.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the total number of savings bank deposits and withdrawals in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th September, 1906; what percentage of these deposits and withdrawals was made through British deposit books; and what was the earliest date at which the Savings Bank Department was in possession of these figures.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Post Office Savings Bank deposits and withdrawals made in Ireland during the quarter ended 30th September, 1906, numbered 187,321 and 104,273 respectively. These figures were available on
  1406
  the 31st December last. To ascertain what percentage of these deposits and withdrawals was made through British deposit books would involve an expenditure which does not seem justified.

  Promotion of Irish and English Postal Officials.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether Mr. Abbot, overseer, Aylesbury, has been appointed postmaster of the Curragh Camp; whether any of the applicants in Ireland for this postmastership were equally qualified to fill the position; how many Post Office officials in Ireland were promoted or transferred to postmasterships in Great Britain during the year 1906; and how many Post Office officials in Great Britain were promoted or transferred to postmasterships in Ireland during the same year.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Yes; I appointed Mr. Abbot, overseer, Aylesbury, to be postmaster of Curragh Camp. I considered him the best qualified candidate, and I may state he had longer service than any of the qualified applicants from Ireland. During the year 1906, four Post Office officials in Ireland were promoted or transferred to postmasterships, or salaried sub-postmasterships, in Great Britain, and two Post Office officials in Great Britain were promoted to similar posts in Ireland.

  The Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the total number of each of the various ranks employed on clerical work in the Exchequer and Audit Department, and also the total number of each rank employed on local audit, outside the head office, at the various Government offices in London, Devonport, Portsmouth, Chatham, Woolwich, and Pretoria.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The following table gives the information for which the hon. Member asks as regards

  1407
  the permanent distribution of the staff; but I should observe that each year members of the staff are sent from head-

  Station.

  Principal Clerks.

  Senior Clerks.

  Chief Examiners.

  Examiners.

  Abstractors.

  Total.

  Headquarters

  3

  9

  9

  56

  9

  86

  Headquarters Colonial Audit Branch

  1

  1

  2

  14

  —

  18

  London—Admiralty

  1

  3

  4

  17

  —

  25

  War Office

  1

  2

  5

  23

  1

  32

  Post Office

  —

  1

  2

  9

  —

  12

  South Kensington

  —

  1

  1

  7

  —

  9

  Dover House

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  New Scotland Yard

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Chatham

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  5

  Devonport

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  5

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  1

  5

  —

  6

  Woolwich

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  4

  South Africa, Pretoria

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  5

  Totals

  6

  18

  29

  148

  10

  211

  Customs and Excise Revenue in Great Britain and Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he will grant a Return for the financial year ended 31st March, 1906, relating to each article on which Customs or Excise duty is payable, as the case maybe, showing the net amount of Excise Revenue collected in Ireland in respect of each of such articles; the net amount of Customs duty collected in Ireland in respect of each of such articles; the net amount of Excise Revenue collected in Great Britain in
  quarters to carry out local tests of various accounts in the different parts of the country, including, of course, Ireland.
  respect of each of such articles imported into Ireland; the net amount of Customs duty collected in Great Britain in respect of each of such articles imported into Ireland; the net amount of Excise Revenue collected in Ireland in respect of each of such articles exported to Great Britain; and the net amount of Customs duty collected in Ireland in respect of each of such articles exported to Great Britain.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The subjoined Table gives the statistics relating

  1409
  to Excise for which the hon. Member asks. Figures are also given of the net amount of duty collected in Ireland on each article liable to Customs duty during the last financial year, but the further particulars as to Customs duties for which the hon. Member asks cannot be given in detail, as the movements between Great Britain and Ireland of goods, other than spirits, on which Customs duties have been paid are not recorded.

  Excise Revenue, 1905–6.

  Statement showing:—

  (1) The Net Amount of Excise Revenue collected in Ireland.

  (2) The Net Amount of Excise Revenue collected in Great Britain in respect of exciseable Articles imported into Ireland; and

  (3) The Net Amount of Excise Revenue collected in Ireland in respect of exciseable Articles exported to Great Britain.

  Articles upon which Excise Duty is payable in Ireland.

  Net Amount of Excise Revenue collected in Ireland upon each of the Articles in the previous column.

  Net Amount of Excise Revenue collected in Great Britain in respect of each of such Articles imported into Ireland.

  Net Amount of Excise Revenue collected in Ireland in respect of each of such Articles exported to Great Britain.

  Remarks.

  £

  £

  £

  British spirits

  4,025,605

  35,000*

  2,072,000*

  * Based upon the permit Returns of removals of duty-paid spirits.

  Beer

  1,265,220

  53,000†

  366,000†

  †Based upon the statistics of transit of beer between Great Britain and Ireland in the year 1903–4.

  Licences

  214,247

  —

  —

  Home-grown tobacco

  736

  —

  —

  Coffee-mixture labels

  2

  —

  —

  Warehouses, &c., charges

  60

  —

  —

  Total

  5,505,870

  88,000

  2,438,000

  The hon. Member will find, however, on page 12 of House of Commons Paper, No. 256, of 1906, the corrections applicable to the receipts in Ireland under the chief heads of Customs Revenue in order to arrive at the true Revenue contributed by Ireland. These corrections are based on the results of a special inquiry into the movements of duty-paid articles to and fro between the two countries in the year 1903–4.

  A Statement of the Net Customs Revenue collected in Ireland on each article subject to Customs Duty in the year ended 31st March, 1906.

  Articles.

  Revenue (Net Receipt).

  £

  £

  Beer, Foreign:—

  Exchequer Revenue

  2,970

  Local Taxation Revenue

  96

  3,066

  Cards, playing

  1

  Chicory

  1

  Chocolate confectionery

  1

  Cocoa

  1,445

  Coffee

  1,067

  Fruit dried or preserved without sugar

  8,854

  Spirits Foreign and Colonial:—

  Exchequer Revenue

  328,270

  Local Taxation Revenue

  14,959

  343,229

  Sugar, including saccharine

  209,709

  Tea

  380,591

  Tobacco

  1,497,971

  Wine

  75,507

  Coal exported

  34

  Total net receipt

  2,521,476

  For the Exchequer

  2,506,421

  For the Local Taxation Accounts

  15,055

  Note.—In addition to the amounts shown above various sums, amounting to £2,007, had been deposited in anticipation of duty payments, but were not, on the 31st March, 1906, finally appropriated to any particular article.

  Promotion of Abstractors (Assistant Clerks) to the Second Division.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether abstractors (assistant clerks), according to their conditions of service, may aspire to promotion to the Second Division; whether, in several Government Departments in which abstractors are employed, many of the meritorious amongst them have been promoted to the Second Division; and whether, seeing that there are abstractors but no Second Division clerks now employed in the Exchequer and Audit Department, what provision is made in that Department for the future promotion of any deserving abstractors serving in it.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Answers to one and two are in the affirmative. If the case for promoting an abstractor in the Audit Office should arise, and it cannot arise under the rules for several years to come, the fact that there are no Second Division clerkships on the establishment of that Department would not be an insuperable obstacle.

  Grant for Building New School at Larne.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the grant for building a new parochial school at Larne, county Antrim, has not yet been issued; whether the first formal application was made in this case on the 18th February, 1905; whether the grant was made on the 4th September, 1906; and whether this does not come under the category of urgent cases, in view of the deplorable condition of the present school, and the fact that it has been repeatedly condemned by the inspectors of the National Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am not able to say when the first formal application was made in this case to the Commissioners of National Education, but the Board of Works inform me that they received it in April, 1905. The cause of delay in this case is that correspondence is proceeding with the Irish Government on the question of the number of children to be accommodated.

  Children and Public-houses.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the revelations recently made as to the prevalent evils which result from taking infants and young children to the public-house, he is prepared to introduce legislation dealing with this subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The matter is receiving and will receive my very careful consideration, but at the present moment I am unable to make any statement as to legislation:

  Death from Phosphorus Poisoning.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that a further death from necrosis in the match trade is reported for January of this year; and whether, in view of the international interest taken in the question of phosphorus poisoning, he will issue to the House full details of this case, as was done by the then Secretary of State with regard to the cases occurring in 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Yes, Sir. When I heard of this very regrettable occurrence I at once directed a visit to be paid to the factory by the chief inspector of factories and Mr. Cunynghame, one of my Assistant Under-Secretaries of State. They discovered no breach of the rules. The case was a very exceptional one, the deceased being a man with one leg, who had to work in a sitting posture and had also an inveterate habit of chewing tobacco. For both these reasons he was exposed to danger which his fellow workers escaped. He had, moreover, worked in yellow phosphorus for years before special rules were established, and had, it is known, long had the seeds of necrosis in his system. I shall propose an Amendment of the special rules to prohibit the chewing of tobacco. The Report made to me by Mr. Cunynghame and the chief inspector will be laid upon the Table of the House.

  Crown Prosecutors and Jury Lists.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether each Crown prosecutor in Ireland is periodically furnished by the proper authorities with a list of jurors in which he is officially concerned, whether the respective lists of jurors thus furnished are sent by the respective Crown prosecutors to the respective county inspectors of police in charge of the county, city, town, or district to which each of such lists relates; whether each county inspector of police sends his list of jurors, or part of such list, to each of his district inspectors in charge of the district to which each part of such list relates; whether each of these district inspectors of police sends the list with which he is thus furnished, or a certain portion of it, to each (or a certain) sergeant of police having charge of or connected with the locality to which each portion relates; whether the instructions relating to these lists direct the various sergeants of police entrusted with such work, to put a certain mark or other means of identification against the name of every juror known, discovered, or suspected to be a Nationalist irrespective of religious belief; whether such lists, thus prepared, are again returned to the various Crown prosecutors through the same official channels as they were forwarded; whether such lists, thus prepared, are used by the various Crown prosecutors when jurors are being challenged by them in prosecution cases; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. Crown prosecutors are never furnished with lists of jurors, and it is no part of their duty to challenge or order jurors to stand by on behalf of the Crown. This duty is invariably discharged by the Crown solicitors. It is the duty of the Crown solicitor to procure, on every occasion upon which assizes and quarter sessions are held, a list of the jurors summoned by the sheriff, and to make inquiries relative to the persons summoned. No instructions are given as to the persons from whom inquiries should be made, and it is open to the Crown solicitor to inquire from the
  1416
  police as from any other persons. No instructions are given to put a mark opposite the names of persons known to be Nationalists; on the contrary, positive instructions are given to the Crown solicitors not to inquire into the religious or political opinions of any juror, and not to direct any juror to stand by on account of his religious or political opinions. Early last year I sent a circular to every Crown solicitor in Ireland impressing upon him the importance of strictly complying with this rule, and I am not aware of any case in which it has not been loyally obeyed by the Crown solicitors during the time I have been in office.

  Untenanted Land in County Roscommon.
  MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the amount of untenanted land purchased and still in the possession of the Congested Districts Board in the county Roscommon; when this land is likely to be distributed; and whether he can state the amount of such land, if any, in the possession of the Estates Commissioners, and the amount for which negotiations are proceeding by either the Board or the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board have agreed to purchase 5,739 acres of untenanted land in county Roscommon, of which 2,362 acres have been vested in the Board. Arrangements for the disposal of the latter area are now in progress. No steps for the disposal of the remaining 3,377 acres can be taken until the property has been vested in the Board. Pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion, the Board are not negotiating for further purchases. The Estates Commissioners have purchased 2,272 acres in Roscommon, of which 952 acres have been re-sold to tenant purchasers, and practically all the residue is being sold to evicted tenants and others who come within the terms of Section 2 (1) of the Act. The Commissioners have agreed to purchase 346 acres in addition, and negotiations for the purchase of 7,117 acres are in progress.

  Pension of Honorary Major W. S. Parr Campbell, late Seaforth Highlanders.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of Honorary Major W. S. Parr Campbell, retired pay list and late of the Seaforth Highlanders (an officer who rose from the ranks), who, although over 55 years of age in 1900 and therefore not liable to serve, volunteered his services during the war, sacrificing civil employment; if he is aware that this officer's pension was merged into the consolidated rate of pay (under Article 488a of the Royal Warrants, 1900) received for his volunteered service, if this deducted pension will be refunded to him, seeing he was beyond the age limit when the Government had any call on his services and is now in somewhat straitened circumstances owing to the impossibility of getting civil employment consequent on advanced age.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My attention has been drawn to this case, which has been fully considered on many occasions. I regret that I cannot undertake to re-open it.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Patrol Ships.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether His Majesty's Government proposes to employ any warships, or vessels other than warships, to act as patrol ships in outlying stations of the Empire.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Admiralty are of opinion that past experience shows that all wants of other departments have been adequately met, but they have expressed their desire to consider any proposals which may in the future be submitted to them by Departments interested in the questions concerned.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to employ any ships, other than warships, for the purpose of showing the flag in outlying portions of the British Empire?
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the Departments referred to were the Colonial Office and Foreign Office, and that the Admiralty were of opinion that all their demands had been properly met.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: May I ask whether, if demands for this service are put forward, they will be met by ships of the Royal Navy, or by ships other than of the Royal Navy, merely showing the flag?
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That is under consideration.
  MR. REMNANT:asked whether any proposals had been made to the Admiralty.
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Not that I am aware of.

  The Channel Fleet.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when it is anticipated that the new battleships, H.M.S. "Dominion," injured by grounding, and H.M.S. "Commonwealth," injured by collision, will be able to join the Channel Fleet; and what are the names of the battleships which are to replace them during the interval.
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: In reply to the first part of the question, both ships will be ready about the middle of May. As regards the second part, they will be replaced in the meantime by "Mars" and "Hannibal."

  Portsmouth Entrance Lock.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the entire sum voted for the new entrance lock at Portsmouth during the year 1906–7 will be expended during the present financial year.
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The sum of £10,000 provided in Vote 10 for 1906–7 was a token sum taken to obtain Parliamentary approval of the scheme. As all the alternative plans considered by the Admiralty were open to serious objection, the question has now been referred to outside consulting engineers, whose Report has not yet been received. Only

  1419
  a small part of the amount voted is likely to be expended during the current year.

  X-Ray Tubes.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Army Medical Department and the entire medical profession in this country are mainly dependent on foreign manufacturers for the supply of tubes for X-ray examinations; and will he state what steps he proposes to take so that the United Kingdom may not be dependent on foreign countries for a supply in the event of war with a continental Power.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The X-ray tubes required for military hospitals are purchased from contractors in this country who obtain many of their supplies from continental manufacturers. The few glass blowers in this country who make X-ray tubes are unable at the present time to produce tubes in sufficient number to meet the demand or to equal in quality and price those manufactured abroad. As these articles would be used for the relief of the wounded I do not anticipate that they would be considered as contrabrand in the event of a war with a continental Power.

  Tidworth Camp.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the General commanding the Southern Division has been asked his opinion concerning allowing buildings by private individuals at Tidworth on Government land; and, if so, what his opinion was.
  MR. HALDANE: The question is one for the Army Council to decide, and the hon. Member may be sure that they will consult those who are in the best position to advise before arriving at a conclusion.

  Army Reorganisation.
  MR. LYELLasked the Secretary of State for War a Question of which he had given private notice—namely, whether it was intended under the proposed scheme of Army organisation that no man should be entitled to discharge from the territorial force except
  1420
  by giving three months' notice and paying £5.
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir; the three months' notice and the £5 is only a general rule laid down in order to ensure some security to the State for the money expended in training and on equipment. The Bill contains a provision enabling the county association, in every case in which they have reason to think that the request is a fair one, to exempt the person concerned both from notice and from making any payment. Such a dispensation is obviously necessary in the case of the working classes, who move from place to place, and it is also useful in order that people, who when changing their place of vocation may have to go from one corps to another, may be able, in theological parlance, to "lift their lines."
  *CAPTAIN FABERasked whether a man would be allowed to transfer from one Volunteer district to another under the three months rule.
  MR. HALDANE: Obviously when a man changes from one place to another it may be necessary in the general interest that he should be transferred from one corps to another. The greatest elasticity is provided for that. The only reason for putting in the £5 provision was to fix a maximum sum towards covering the cost of equipment.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Then do I understand that the terms of service in the new territorial army will be no more certain than the terms of service in the Volunteer force?
  MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman must understand nothing of the kind. The rule is three months and £5, and whenever there is an arbitrary endeavour on the part of anybody to get out of his obligations, that will be adhered to. The dispensing power is only given to the association, and is only to be exercised in cases where they think that there is reasonable ground for making the dispensation.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will there be any legal means of recovering this money in case Volunteers should prove obdurate?
  MR. HALDANE: Oh, yes. There will be very sharp legal means; but the hon. Member should wait until he sees the Bill, which I hope will be printed and before the House on Tuesday or Wednesday.

  War Office Land at Bexhill.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the restrictions and conditions under which the Army Council are prepared to sell land at Bexhill to the corporation of that town; and whether such restrictions and conditions have yet been communicated to the borough council of Bexhill.
  MR. HALDANE: The whole question is being considered by the War Department in conjunction with the Admiralty. I am not, therefore, in a position to give any information on the points raised in the Question.

  Nepaul Outrage.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information as to the circumstances under which Mr. Bloomfield, a British subject, was recently beaten to death by natives in Nepaul; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): I have no information beyond what has been published in the newspapers. The local authorities appear to be doing all that is possible to bring the guilty men to justice. No action on my part seems called for.

  Native Demonstrations at Lahore.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the fact that a crowd of Indian natives, on Friday the 15th inst., paraded the streets of Lahore hooting every European they met; and whether, as this is a new departure since the days of the Mutiny, he intends to take any action in the matter.
  MR. MORLEY: I have seen a report to the effect stated. It is a matter for
  1422
  the local authorities, and I do not propose to take any action.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether this incident was to be attributed to the general unrest in India.
  MR. MORLEY: No, Sir. I do not believe it has the slightest connection with what the hon. Gentleman is pleased to call the general unrest in India, as to which I am rather sceptical.

  Malwa Opium Duty.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the fact that the duty on Malwa opium was increased from Rs.500 to Rs.600 a chest in 1904 on the ground that the price of Bengal opium had advanced to Rs.1,393 a chest, and to the fact that the average price of Bengal opium since 1904 has much exceeded that amount, he will consider the desirability of raising the Malwa rate to Rs.700 or at least to Rs.650, at which it stood a few years ago when prices averaged much lower than they do now.
  MR. MORLEY: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's Question of 20th February on the same subject.†

  Poppy Cultivation in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any indication of the amount of the reduction in the area of the cultivation of poppy which is likely to be effected next year.
  MR. MORLEY: It has been decided to restrict the area next year to 562,500 acres. In the current year the area settled is 595,000 acres. For the five preceding years it averaged 605,000 acres.

  Price of Bengal Opium.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the average price per chest of Bengal opium at the Calcutta sales was Rs.1,461 in 1903–4, Rs.1,587 in 1904–5, and Rs. 1,434 in 1905–6; what was the average price during the first nine months of 1906–7; and what were the grounds of
  †See Col. 826–7.

  1423
  the estimate of the Government of India that the average price during the current year would be only Rs.1,125.
  MR. MORLEY: The prices were as stated. For the first nine months of 1906–7 the average price has been Rs.1,382. The estimate for the current year was based on the fact that the March sales, which generally give a result in excess of the average for the ensuing year, only yielded Rs.1,258 the chest, and that for some months prices had declined.

  Child Labour in the New Hebrides.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in the suggested negotiations with the Government of France relative to the New Hebrides, he will urge the importance of forbidding entirely the engagement of young children under any scheme of indentured labour, and, further, the raising of the minimum wage from 10s. to at least £1.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill,): I may perhaps be allowed to answer this Question: I have already had an opportunity of giving information to the House upon the two points raised by the honourable and gallant Member. With regard to the first, I may refer him to the Answer which I gave last Tuesday to the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division of Shropshire;†and with regard to the second, to my reply on Thursday to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Andrew's Burghs.‡

  British Concession at Chinde.
  *Mr. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the question of providing accommodation for the British Concession at Chinde, in the place of that which has disappeaped owing to erosion, has been dealt with during the Recess; and, if not, whether he will urge the local administration to expedite proposals in order to meeting the wants of the merchants of Chinde, the Chamber of Commerce, Blantyre, and the
  †See Col. 706–7.
  ‡See Col. 1029–30.
  1424
  general commercial community of British Central Africa.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government have recently received an intimation from the Government of Portugal that they are prepared to grant an extension of the concession so much of which has been destroyed by erosion; the details of the matter have not, however, yet been adjusted with the Portuguese Government.

  Colonial Conference.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether at the forthcoming Colonial Conference His Majesty's Government, in considering the effect of such resolutions as may be passed, will have regard to the disproportion in the populations of the various Colonies; and whether, for instance, the same weight will be attached to the views of the delegates from Newfoundland, representing a population of less than 250,000, as to those of the delegates from Australasia, representing a population of over 5,000,000.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government will give the fullest consideration to the views of all the Colonial Representatives.

  Female and Child Labour in the New Hebrides.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that unprotected native women and children may be handed over, at the will of the chief of their tribe, for terms of three years, away from the protection of the British flag, to settlers many of whom are time-expired criminals from the penal settlements of France.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am not quite clear whether the hon. Member refers to recruiting for service with French settlers in New Caledonia or in the New Hebrides; but in either case His Majesty's Government must repudiate the suggestion that the French Government, with whom the responsibility rests, will not make full arrangements

  1425
  for the protection of all natives employed by Frenchmen. The further imputation which appears to be contained in the hon. and gallant Member's Question that women and children may be engaged for service either with or without indentures by the will of their tribal chief irrespective of their own wishes is also of course totally without support or justification.
  SIR. GILBERT PARKERIs it the case that the British Government have no control over or responsibility for natives recruited for New Caledonia?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice of that Question, which is not only one of law, but also touches the domain of another Power.

  Recruiting Licences for the New Hebrides.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies under what article and paragraph of the Convention with France with reference to the New Hebrides the High Commissioners have discretion as to the grant of recruiting licences in the case of applicants of doubtful character.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The provisions will be found in Article XXXI., paragraphs (1) and (2).

  British Indians in Natal, and the Franchise.
  MR. DUNCAN SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the effect of the Municipal Corporations Act of Natal, now awaiting the sanction of His Majesty's Imperial Government, will be to deprive qualified free British Indians in that Colony of their present right to enrolment as burgesses and municipal voters, that the term "uncivilised races" in that Act will include evencultured sons of freed indentured labourers as well as such freed Indians themselves, and that its effect will be for ever to preclude their obtaining the municipal vote, the Secretary of State proposes to advise that sanction shall be withheld from this Act.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As I explained in reply to Questions addressed to me on 19th and 20th February by the hon. Members for Hammersmith and the Montgomery Burghs,†the Secretary of State is in communication with the Natal Government. Meanwhile the Bill is not in operation.

  Dinizulu.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary for the Colonies has interfered in a legal action which Dinizulu is taking against his former private secretary, Mr. Daniels, in the course of which the statements made by the said Mr. Daniels, imputing disloyalty to Dinizulu, will be examined; whether the Secretary of State has made any communication to the Natal authorities of any kind regarding this trial, and, if so, under what statutory or other authority has the communication been made; and whether, if this communication has been made, it is proposed to lay it upon the Table of the House.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, the Secretary of State has not interfered.

  Mr. Churchill and the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his speech of 18th December, 1906, cabled under the authority of the Secretary of State for publication in the Transvaal, contained the following passage concerning the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, "this body which has a tremendous and sinister influence over the local Press, and whose influence may sometimes be traced even in the columns of some of our leading newspapers, was given by the Chamber of Mines the power of turning off or on as a tap the supply of native labour"; whether the Secretary of State, in reference to this charge, had stated that he did not in any way impute malpractice to the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to withdraw charges to which currency has been given officially and at the public cost.
  †See Col.706,828.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Such a passage occurs in the cabled report. Both the statements made by me in this House and by the Secretary of State in another place can only be judged in their general context. So studied, no contradiction or disagreement can, in my opinion, be inferred, and certainly, whatever may be inferred, none exists. I am much obliged to my noble friend for having defended my action in the House of Commons when that action was called in question in another place; and for myself, I can only say that after careful consideration of the remarks made by me upon the Chamber of Mines and the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, and the influence exerted by these bodies in various directions, to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, I am of opinion that those remarks were well justified in fact and in the public interest at the time, and have not become either obsolete or inaccurate since.
  MR. LYTTELTON: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is not aware that a direct challenge was made to Lord Elgin to produce any evidence for the statements set out in this cabled speech; that no evidence was produced of these charges; and that Lord Elgin said that he did not impute in any way malpractices to the Native Labour Association; and, if so, how does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement of Lord Elgin's with his own?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have answered the Question upon the Paper; and I will leave to the right hon. Gentleman the task of reconciling that Answer with any impression he may have derived of the actual fact or of any statement made in this place or another place at this time or any other time.

  Transvaal—Repatriation Statistics.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many coolies have been repatriated from the Transvaal, on the terms and under the conditions of the Repatriation Proclamation, since the date of its posting.
  MR. CHURCHILL: 766 coolies have been repatriated under the terms of the repatriation notice. Some twenty-two
  1428
  additional applications have been received, and are under consideration.

  New Hebrides—House Accommodation for Labour.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any provision will be made under the New Hebrides Convention to ensure separate housing accommodation for unmarried men and women.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The High Commissioners and the resident Commissioners can provide for this and other similar matters under the powers vested in them by the Convention.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the regulations governing these matters be laid on the Table.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Obviously they will have to be laid, and I had better defer answering these Questions until something definite has been done.
  In reply to Lord Balcarres (Lancashire, Chorley).
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the provisions of the Convention did not apply outside the area of jurisdiction.

  Treaty with Sweden and Norway.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in the negotiations between this country and other Powers with a view to substitute a new treaty for that of 1855 with reference to Sweden and Norway.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I am not able to make any statement on this subject at the present moment.

  Macedonian Refugees in Bulgaria.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a memorial has been received from the Macedonian refugees in Bulgaria with reference to the enforcement of Articles 23 and 62 of the Treaty of Berlin; and what action the Government proposes to take in the matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not quite sure to what the hon. Member's Question refers, but I am unable at present to make any statement as to what further reforms the Powers may agree to put forward.

  Baghdad Railway.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what point the Baghdad Railway has now been completed; whether the work is still being carried on; and whether any kilometric guarantee for farther extension has been given to the promoters by the Turkish Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The first section of the railway from Konia to Bulgurlu has been completed. With regard to the second and third paragraphs of the Question I have no information.

  Cairo Electric and Gas Lighting Company.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the facts that the electric and gas lighting of Cairo is the monopoly of a single company; that the Cairo water supply and the Cairo tramways system are each of them likewise held as monopolies; that the electric light contract has been extended by the Government for a further term of twenty years, so that it will expire only in 1948; that the Government has further waived its rights in this case to re-purchase at the end of thirty years; that the gas contract will likewise not expire till 1948; that the monopoly of the Cairo tramways company has latterly been extended by the Government for a further term of five years, so that it will not expire till 1951; whether he can state the duration of the concession to the Cairo water company, and, as regards all four monopolies, the financial terms on which they are held; by whom, on behalf of the Government, were the concessions negotiated; and whether he will instruct the British agent at Cairo to advise the Egyptian Government against the creation of any further monopolies or the extension of those in existence, as being against the public interest.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on the subject of this Question. Similar arrangements exist in
  1430
  this country, and I am not prepared, nor indeed is it possible for me to interfere actively in such matters by sending special instructions to His Majesty's Consul-General in Egypt with regard to them, though the general question of preventing monopolies being created or extended against the public interest will not be lost sight of.

  Congo Free State.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Reports on matters connected with the Congo Free State have been received from Vice-Consuls Captain Mitchell and Mr. Armstrong; and, if so, whether he is in a position to present such Reports to the House.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I hope to lay Papers presently containing further Consular Reports.

  The Budget.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the forthcoming Budget, he has yet considered the expediency of widening the range of taxation on luxuries, such as deer forests, salmon fishings, grouse moors, yachts, and motor-cars.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): I gave my hon. friend a promise as long ago as last March that this suggestion would receive my serious consideration. I cannot add anything to that statement unless and until the time comes when I can lay specific proposals before the House.

  Postal Employees and Income-Tax.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask Air. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the employees in the postal and postal telegraph departments are now being charged income-tax, not only upon their salaries, so far as they exceed the limit of exemption, but also upon all overtime gained by such employees when engaged upon emergency work; and whether he is willing to take any action in the matter.
  MR. ASQUITH: Earnings on over time are as much a part of income as regular salary, and I am not aware of

  1431
  any recent change of practice as regards the assessment of such earnings in the departments mentioned. They are made chargeable to income-tax by the first rule of Schedule E., Section 146 of the Act of 1842, and there is no reason in either law or practice for exempting them from assessment.

  Civil Servants and Income Tax.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether instructions have recently been given as regards pensioned civil servants whereby income-tax is deducted from their pensions in respect of the property tax upon any cottages or other property belonging to them; and whether this has the effect of preventing such civil servants obtaining relief in respect of any of such property which during the year may happen to be void.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have made inquiries, but I have been unable to trace any action on the part of public departments that can have given rise to the impression on which the hon. Member's Question appears to be founded; but if he can give me a specific case, I will have it looked into.

  Depreciation of British Securities.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the heavy fall in British local government stocks, British railway stocks, and British securities generally since the month of January, 1906, while Foreign and Colonial securities of a similar character have either maintained or increased their price; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the position.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am aware of the general fall in securities to which the right hon. and gallant Member draws attention. It appears to have affected many of the Foreign and Colonial securities as well as those of British domicile. I do not know that any general conclusion can be drawn from a comparison of Stock Exchange prices over a period of twelve months, in which, not only general causes, but also local and transient causes, have been variously at work. It should not, however, be for gotten that, during a period of active
  1432
  trade, when money is in great demand, the natural tendency is to depress the prices of securities which bear a fixed rate of interest, and that this effect is likely to be most felt by securities of the highest class, in which there is least of the speculative element.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether within his knowledge it would be a fair estimate to say that within the time mentioned the fall in British Government securities has not been less than £40,000,000 and in British railway securities not less than £100,000,000?
  MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must give me notice of that Question.
  SIR F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that all American railway securities have during that time risen considerably?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Stock Exchange prices will show that.
  MR. MOORE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Bank of Ireland stock has now touched its lowest point since the introduction of the last Home Rule Bill?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman, not being a member of the Stock Exchange, can hardly be expected to answer that.

  Dog Licence Exemption.
  MR. MARNHAM: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on 13th February, 1907, the Chertsey bench of magistrates granted, as prescribed in Section 5 of the. Dogs Act, 1906, eighty-eight certificates of exemption to owners of sheep dogs under Section 22 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878, without having first had laid before them evidence of the genuineness of the grounds for such exemptions; and whether, in view of the statement of the local supervisor of Inland Revenue on the above occasion, to wit, that the authorities at Somerset House had instructed its officers to do nothing in these cases, arid in view of the

  1433
  high percentage of exemptions in a part of the country where very few sheep or cattle are reared or fed, he will confer with the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to the desirability of the police being instructed in future to make full inquiry into each such application for exemption, and to report to the magistrates thereon before such certificates are granted.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Act of last session prescribed the reference of exemption claims to petty sessions in the first instance, as an additional check, and it left unimpaired the discretion of the Board of Inland Revenue to refuse the exemption. I quite agree, however, that the additional check ought to be a real one, and I will consult the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the subject, as my hon. friend suggests.

  Mine Inspectorships.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can see his way to introduce a change in regard to mines inspectorships, whereby all Applicants having colliery managers' certificates may in future be allowed to sit for examination, and so allow the best men to come to the top, and thereby abolish the present method of selection and nomination by the Secretary of State.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I do not think it would be at all advisable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. I protest strongly against the implication in the Question that the present system prevents she best men from coming to the top. In the appointment of inspectors of mines I attach great importance to practical experience, and other special qualifications, which cannot satisfactorily be tested by an open competitive examination. Under the present system anyone who chooses can apply for a nomination to compete. All such applications are most carefully scrutinised, and the best of the applicants personally interviewed before the nominations are made.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: Is it a fact that the application forms supplied by the Home Office are of such a character that
  1434
  they cannot ascertain what ability is likely to be displayed by the applicants? I should like to know how without examinations the best men are to be got for the positions indicated in the Question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not quite sure on behalf of whom my hon. friend is speaking. I have had up to the present no representation on the subject from either representatives of the miners or mine owners. The question is one quite within the purview of the Royal Commission, and on which they can make any suggestion they like.

  Public House Closing on Election Days
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the elections in the Transvaal were conducted with exceptional order and sobriety owing to Lord Milner's law forbidding the sale of liquor on election days; and whether he will bear this experience in mind in framing the forthcoming Licensing Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no information enabling me to draw an accurate comparison in the matter of order and sobriety between the recent Transvaal elections and other elections; and so far as I am aware of the provisions of the Transvaal law it does not seem to go as far as totally prohibiting the sale of liquor on election days. I can, however, say that the question of such prohibition will be considered in connection with licensing reform.

  Sunday Trading.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he in tends this session to introduce a measure dealing with the question of Sunday trading on the lines of the recommendations of the Joint Committee of last session.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The matter is receiving my consideration,. but I cannot give any promise as to legislation.

  Fatalities in Carnarvonshire Slate Quarries
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether

  1435
  his attention has bean called to the fact that there have been five fatal accidents in the slate quarries of North Carnarvonshire since the 1st January this year; and whether he will appoint a small committee to inquire as to the working of slate quarries, with a view to the amendment of the Quarries Act and the regulations made there under.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I regret to say that it is the case that there have been five fatal accidents in the Carnarvonshire slate quarries since the beginning of the year, four of them being due to falls of rock. During the whole of 1906, however, there was only one fatal accident in these quarries, and in each of the years previous to that only three. There seems no reason to suppose that the increase is other than temporary, but the inspector is making further inquiry. He thinks it may be partly attributable to the long and severe frost making the rock more dangerous. The whole question of the amendment of the Quarries Act and the special rules there under will be considered by me in connection with any legislation as to mines and quarries that may result from the inquiry by the Royal Commission now sitting.

  Bacup Carter's Hours of Labour.
  MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the facts made known during the prosecution, at Bacup, of a carter for being asleep while on duty, from which it appears that, after this carter had been on the road for twenty-four hours, he was called on, after being allowed only one and a half hours rest, to undertake another journey to Manchester; and whether, in view of the circumstances, he will take steps to put a stop to the practice of employers who make such demands on the physical endurance of their workpeople.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have received a Report on the case from the police, from which it appears that statements to this effect were made by the defendant and his wife; and the Chief Constable says that the case is one of many that have come before the Justices in which the carters have according to their statements been employed continuously for an
  1436
  unreasonable number of hours, and in which the Justices considered the employer was more culpable than the servant. The matter is not one in which I have any power to take action under the existing law, but I will bear the point in mind in connection with any legislation to amend the Highways Act that may be contemplated in the future. In the meantime I hope the hon. Member's Question will have the effect of drawing the attention of employers to the matter.

  Cost of the Poor Law Department of the Local Government Board.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what was the entire cost of the administration of the Poor Law Department of the Local Government Board from its inception in 1871 to the end of the financial year 1906.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The Poor Law, which is only one of many subjects dealt with by the Local Government Board, is not wholly conducted by a separate staff of officers, and it is not possible to say how much of the cost of the Department is caused by this branch of their work.

  London City Guardians and Destitute Children.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in regard to the case of a destitute child, named Michael Hayes, who was, on or about the 1st January 1907, brought before the magistrates at the Guildhall without shoes or stockings from the City Union, if he will say in what cases and at what dates did the City Guardians clothe children charged with offences and afterwards find that the parents had disposed of such clothing; whether he is aware that the chairman of the board of guardians stated in January last that the guardians were liable to be surcharged by the auditor of the Local Government Board for feeding these charge children; will he say whether they are liable to such surcharge; whether the auditor of the Local Government Board has threatened or would, inflict a surcharge either for feeding or

  1437
  giving necessary clothing to such children; what is the cost of relief in this union per head of population; and whether it does not treat more than half its members by indoor relief.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have been furnished with a list of the charged children during the latter part of the time in which the City of London Guardians provided clothing for such children. From this list it appears that between February, 1897, and February, 1899, seventeen children were charged. Each of these children was again charged between February, 1897, and March, 1899, five of them were charged a third time between June, 1898, and March, 1899, and one of them a fourth time in June, 1898. On each occasion, as I understand, the guardians provided clothing. I have no information as to the statement alleged to have been made by the chairman. I could not express an opinion as to the liability of the guardians to surcharge without knowing the precise circumstances of the particular case; but I understand from the auditor that he has not threatened surcharge in respect of the feeding or clothing of any children of the kind in question. The expenditure of the guardians of this union on purposes wholly connected with the relief of the poor was, in the year ended Lady Day, 1906 (excluding the cost of paupers maintained in the institutions of the Metropolitan Asylums Board and the contributions of the guardians to that body, and to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund), £3 6s. 3d. per head of the night population of the union, which is co-extensive with the City, as estimated by the Registrar-General in 1905. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the affirmative.

  Rona Light and Fog Signal.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners have yet decided to establish a light and fog signal on the Island of Rona, thirty-nine miles north-east of the Butt of Lewis.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): I have communicated with the Commissioners of Northern Light houses, who inform me that they adhere
  1438
  to the views expressed in my reply to a Question by my hon. friend on the 30th April last, viz., that they have not yet decided to propose the erection of a lighthouse and fog signal on North Rona, and that in view of the heavy cost which its establishment and maintenance would in volve, and the more pressing claims of other schemes, it is unlikely that the erection of a station there will be proceeded with in the near future.

  Automatic Railway Couplings.
  MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Committee which is in quiring into the question of safety appliances on railways has had the subject of automatic couplings under consideration; and when it is likely to report.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am informed that the time of the Committee has been fully occupied with the question of either side brakes and with experiments with appliances of this nature. They have at the same time taken steps with a view to ascertaining whether there is any need for automatic couplings in this country, and are collecting information as to the conditions with which automatic couplings should comply so as to be suitable for the rolling stock in the United Kingdom in case the necessity for their adoption should be established.
  MR. JOWETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the Report may be expected?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand it will take some time to carry out the experiments.

  Stockport Messenger's Grievance.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the discharge of a messenger from the Stockport office named Charles Gorst on the ground that he was the son of a publican and lived on licensed premises; whether there is any regulation which forbids such employment; and, if so, will he consider the propriety of its withdrawal.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I am making inquiry on the

  1439
  subject and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Rex v. A. D. Turner.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why no payment has been made for travelling and other expenses incurred by the witnesses summoned by the Public Prosecutor in the case of Rex v. Andrew Dunn Turner, which was tried at Lewes Assizes, on the 22nd November, 1906; and whether he will direct payment to be made forthwith.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): The Director of Public Prosecutions informs me that these expenses should have been paid by his agent as soon as possible after the assizes. Owing to the delay of the agent in sending in his accounts the Director was unaware that the witnesses had not been paid, but if they or any of them had applied to him the matter would have had immediate attention. On seeing the Question of the hon. Member the Director wrote again to his agent pressing for the account, and has given directions for the immediate payment of the witnesses, which I understand has now been done.

  Whitburn Beach.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Harton Coal Company have made no attempt to abate the nuisance of tipping slag, firebrick, and cinders on to the beach at Whitburn, near Sunderland, and that as a consequence this beach is being completely ruined as a pleasure resort; and, if so, whether he will at once take action in the matter with a view to its discontinuance.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the Harton Coal Company have obtained possession of land which will be utilised as tipping ground, that they are now making the necessary arrangements to commence to utilise it, and that as soon as these are complete further tipping on the shore will be stopped.

  Cost of North Sea Fisheries Investigation.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secre-
  1440
  tary to the Treasury what sums of money have been contributed by this and other nations respectively towards the inter national investigation of the North Sea; if he will state what practical good has resulted from the so-called investigations made up to now; and whether, in view of the fact that the coasts of Scotland are continually harried by trawlers, and that the fishermen receive no adequate protection, he will consider if the money spent on the Marine Biological Association could be better employed, so as to provide the Scottish Fishery Board with adequate funds to protect fishermen in pursuit of their calling.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: For the information required in the first part of the Question I must refer my hon. friend to page 41 of Command Paper 2,966 of 1906. But I should point out that in addition each country has spent consider able sums on steamers and laboratories, etc, maintained in connection with the inquiry. As regards the remaining portions of the Question, I may observe that a Committee has been appointed to inquire into the whole subject.

  Farsley District Councillor's Dismissal.
  MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if his attention has been called to the action of Mr. Edwin Woodhouse, managing director of the firm of E. Woodhouse and Company, Limited, manufacturers, a Justice of the Peace and Deputy-Lieutenant in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in discharging one of his employees for offering himself as a candidates at the Farsley district council election, notwithstanding the fact that the employee in question has previously served on the said council without breaking any of his working time for the performance of his public duties; and whether he will take steps to put an end to the practice of employers who arrogate to themselves the right of determining what use their employees shall make of their time after working hours.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): It is not alleged, I understand, that any breach of the law has been committed. The subject, therefore, will not go before the Director of Public Prosecutions. I see great difficulty in bringing in legislation

  1441
  on the lines suggested. I trust the Question will serve to draw attention to the fact.

  North Sea Fisheries Investigation.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, in view of the fact that in the Report of the British delegates who attended the meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, held at Amsterdam in 1906, it is stated that His Majesty's Government do not intend to participate in the North Sea Fishery Investigations on the present footing after 22nd July, 1907, is he yet in a position to say whether the investigations by foreign Governments will also terminate on that date.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We are informed that it has been decided that this country should continue to participate in the investigations to which my hon. friend refers for another twelve months, i.e., until July, 1908, on the same terms as before.
  MR. WEIR: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my Question?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: That should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  Marking of Hop Pockets.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the provisions of the Hop Trade Act, 1866, as to the marking of hop pockets and the mixing of hops, apply to imported hops, or to home-grown hops only; and, if the latter, whether he will take steps to place home growers on an equality with foreign growers in this respect.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The provisions to which the hon. Member refers are not applicable to imported hops. The Select Committee on the hop industry which reported in 1890, expressed the opinion that the interests of English hop-growers would not be served by any alteration of the law in this respect, and although the matter has frequently been under consideration since
  1442
  that time, the Board have never seen any sufficient reason to dissent from the conclusion at which the Committee arrived.

  Meals for Hungry School Children in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that a Bill was passed last session providing meals for necessitous school children in England, he will state when he proposes to introduce a similar measure for Scotland.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the School Boards in Scotland excepting Glasgow and Aberdeen have protested against this proposal?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): There are some 900 parishes in Scotland and I do not think a large number of them have expressed any opinion. Proposals with this object in view will be included in the Education Bill for Scotland, which, as I have already stated in answer to the hon. Member for Kincardineshire, I hope to have an opportunity of introducing on an early date.

  Scottish School Teachers' Pensions.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any arrangements have yet been made for an improved scale of pensions for teachers in public schools in Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, but proposals to this end are under consideration in connection with the Education Bill already referred to by me in previous answers.

  Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received any information as to the number of trawlers that have been fishing in the proscribed waters of the Moray Firth since the three masters of the Grimsby trawlers, fishing under the Norwegian flag, were released without paying their fines; and what action he intends to take on behalf of the local fishermen in the event of the entire crew of the Grimsby trawlers being manned by foreigners.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Four foreign trawlers have been observed working in the Moray Firth by one of the superintending cruisers since 9th February—the date when the Norwegian trawl masters were released from prison. Several trawlers have also been reported by the Board's fishery officer at Lossiemouth as working off that place. As already stated, I intend to introduce a Bill extending to all British ports the prohibition against landing fish caught by the trawl in prohibited waters.

  Kintail Poor Law Medical Officer.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware of the dismissal from office of Dr. George Duncan, the Poor Law medical officer of the parishes of Kintail, Glenshiel, and Lochalsh, after fifty years of public service; will he say if he failed or neglected or refused to perform the duties of his office, or if he was found unfit or incompetent to discharge them; have the Local Government Board made any inquiry into the case; and, if so, what reasons have been alleged by the parish councils for his dismissal.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have to reply to the first part of the Question in the affirmative, but, as the hon. Member is aware, the Board have no power to interfere in the matter of dismissal of a parochial medical officer. Dr. Duncan, who is medical officer of the three very large parishes named, is of advanced years, and I understand that, as he has failed to implement an agreement made with him three years ago to appoint an assistant, he has been asked to resign as from 1st July next. I am not aware that unfitness or in competency of any kind has been alleged.

  Scottish Church Commission.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can give the House any information as to when the Church Commission will make its final Report; and what is the reason for the delay in having a final settlement as to the disputed property.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have no official information, but on referring to the Chairman I am requested to point out
  1444
  that the Commission has not only to pronounce decree of allocation but has to adjust separate orders for the transfer of property in connection with every one of the eleven hundred congregations concerned as well as in regard to property held for foreign missions in various parts of the world, for colleges, and for other schemes of the Church. It has also been, necessary to give much consideration to legacies which fall under the jurisdiction of the Church before formally allocating the capital funds. The task entrusted to the Commission involves manifold and complex difficulties and details which, cannot be described in an Answer to a Question, and the Commissioners with every desire for an early settlement have felt it their duty to deal with them thoroughly and comprehensively.

  Irish School Teachers' Character Certificates.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the quarterly returns of the Irish national schools, there is a query which requires the teachers to have their character certified every three months; and as this query has given rise to much dissatisfaction, will he request the Commissioners of National Education to eliminate it from the quarterly return.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that it is the fact that managers are requested to state in the quarterly returns their opinion as to the teacher's character. The Commissioners have more than once had this query under consideration, but have not seen their way to abolish it. I will, however, commend the matter to their further consideration.

  Irish School Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire why the salary warrants of the Irish national teachers, after being signed by the managers and certified for payment in the Education Office, are not forwarded direct to the teachers; and whether, in view of the inconvenience resulting in many cases from their not doing so, he would request the Commissioners of

  1445
  National Education to send the warrants direct to the teachers in the future.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the grants towards the salaries of national school teachers are sent to the local managers, because they are the persons who are charged with the direct government of the schools and who appoint and remove the teachers. The Commissioners tell me that they do not consider it necessary or desirable to alter the existing arrangements.
  MR. SLOAN: Are we to take it the managers are the paymasters of the school teachers?
  MR. BIRRELL: It is assumed that they supplement the salaries of the teachers which are transmitted to them.
  MR. SLOAN: Will the Commissioners issue a circular urging the managers to pay over the salaries as soon as received?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no control over the Commissioners, but I will communicate the hon. Member's suggestion to them.

  Mountshannon Estate, Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say how the Mountshannon estate, in county, Limerick, stands at present; how soon it will be available for distribution; and have the names of Simon Ryan, of Cross Pallasgrean, James Conway, of Gurtavalla Doon Hanora Lonergan of Lower Toomaline Doon, and Ellen Rafferty, of Knockroe, Kilteely, who applied for farms on it instead of their evicted farms something about two years ago, been recognised as among those who are appointed to receive farms on this estate.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have agreed to purchase this estate and expect to obtain possession next May. The scheme for the distribution of the farms has not yet been settled, and the Commissioners are therefore unable to say whether the persons named in the Question will be allotted farms. There is a large number of applicants.
  MR. JOYCE: Will the evicted tenants get a share of the work which will have to be done?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will inquire into that.

  Adare Evicted Tenants.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in the month of it September last Thomas Drew, of Ardshanbally, Adare, county Limerick, was evicted from his holding by the Earl of Dunraven, of Adare Manor; that Thomas Drew and his wife, who is delicate in health, are living in an unsanitary cabin; and will he see that the Estates Commissioners send an inspector on the lands to report on Thomas Drew's case with a e view to his restoration.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received from Thomas Drew an application for reinstatement, and have referred the case to their inspector for investigation, but have not yet received his report. In the meantime the Commissioners have no knowledge of the facts.

  Irish Relieving Officers.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenent of Ireland whether a relieving officer of some years' standing and having a shop of which his wife has charge should be required by order of the Local Government Board to resign his position or give up his shop; and whether Article 20 of the Local Government Board refers to future and not to long-standing, appointments.
  MR. BIRRELL: Under Article 29 of the General Regulations of the Local Government Board, no person can be appointed to be a relieving officer who is engaged in retail trade of any kind. In the opinion of the Local Government Board, the same reasons which render this a disqualification for appointment require that any relieving officer who elects to engage in retail trade subsequent to his appointment should resign his position.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But why disqualify a man when he has nothing whatever to do with the shop?
  MR. BIRRELL: The difference between the man and his wife in a matter like this requires very careful investigation. I think the rule is a very desirable one.

  Housing of the Working Classes in Ireland.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the discontent in Ireland, owing to the condition of the housing of the working classes, he will consider the advisability of introducing a measure for cheapening and facilitating the borrowing of loans in cities, towns, and urban districts, so as to enable the councils of such places to borrow money at the same rates as now obtain under the Agricultural Labourers (Ireland) Act of last year, and thus be enabled to proceed with this necessary work which under present conditions they are unable to do.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have nothing at present to add to the statement made by my predecessor last session, namely, that it is the intention of the Government, at a convenient opportunity, to consider whether any Amendment of the law relating to the housing of the working classes in the towns of Ireland may be necessary.
  MR. JOYCE: Did not a former Chief Secretary promise action in this matter?
  MR. BIRRELL: That may be. I am greatly embarrassed by the promises of my predecessors.

  Out-Relief in Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that every three months the Belfast Board of Guardians are compelled by the Local Government Board regulation to post throughout the union district the names and addresses of each person receiving outdoor relief, including blind persons, for whom a capitation is granted; and whether, in view of the fact that the Belfast guardians have petitioned the Local Government Board to suspend such regulation, he will cause it to be withdrawn, so that the honest poor may not suffer under this stigma.
  MR. BIRRELL: The duty in question is imposed upon boards of guardians by Statute, and the Local Government Board have no dispensing power in the matter. The provision has this advantage: it enables the recipients of outdoor relief to ascertain the exact amounts which have been granted to them, and in this respect it has been found most useful and necessary.
  MR. SLOAN: Why does not the provision apply to every county in Ireland?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will inquire as to that.

  Fairholme Estate, Cahir.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations were in course of progress for the sale of Fairholme estate, at Outrath, near Cahir, county Tipperary, on which is an evicted holding which the Estates Commissioners are willing to buy and the agent, Mr. Hunt, is willing to sell; whether the sale has been blocked by Captain Bloomfield, New Park, Waterford, who since the passing of the Land Act of 1903 has taken this evicted farm and demands £700 compensation; whether Captain Bloomfield has grabbed several evicted farms under similar circumstances; and whether he will see that such attempts to defeat the objects of the Land Act will be effectively dealt with.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge of any negotiations for the sale of this estate which may have taken place. They have received from an evicted tenant an application for reinstatement in his former holding now occupied by Captain Bloomfield, who asked £900 for his interest in the farm. As the evicted tenant holds a good farm elsewhere, the Commissioners decided to take no action on his application. The Commissioners are not aware whether Captain Bloomfield holds other evicted farms. The matter is entirely one for the decision of the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. CULLINAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the passing

  1449
  of the last Land Act several parties have, like Captain Bloomfield, taken over evicted holdings and levied blackmail on the estate. Will he, in his promised legislation regarding evicted tenants, bear that fact in mind and have these gentlemen cleared out?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  American Mail Service—Sorting Arrangements.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that for some time past no sorters have been placed either upon the trains which convey the White Star American mails from Queenstown to Dublin or upon the Dublin and Holyhead steam packets, and that consequently large quantities of letters destined for various English centres frequently reach the London Post Office unsorted, thus entailing considerable delay in delivery and unfairly handicapping the Queenstown route; and whether arrangements will be made with a view to secure that all letters which may be landed at Queenstown unsorted shall be sorted before reaching London.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Arrangements were made in 1905 for correspondence brought from America by the White Star Packets to be sorted at sea instead of after arrival at Queenstown. Considerable advantage as regards the amount of sorting done has been gained by the change; and indeed in ordinary circumstances the sorters on board the packets are usually able to complete their work. At specially busy times such as Christmas the correspondence is too heavy to be completely sorted in any travelling post office; but even at such times the present arrangement gives much better results than that previously in force.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Then am I to understand it is not proposed to make any alteration in the present travelling mail service between Dublin and Queenstown? Will sorters still be carried on the train?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Most of the sorting is now done on board ship and there is not therefore so much necessary to be done on the train. I do not
  1450
  understand there will be any alterations other than are due to that fact.

  Manhood Suffrage.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can state the approximate number of men in the United Kingdom aged twenty-one years and upwards, also the number of men registered as Parliamentary electors; and whether he can promise early legislation to establish the principle of votes for men.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I must refer my hon. friend to the last Census Returns for an Answer to the first part of his Question; the information he desires as to the number of registered Parliamentary electors will be found in a Return in continuation of Cd. Paper 2807, which will, I believe, be shortly issued. With regard to the final paragraph of his question, I am afraid I am not in a position to make any promise.

  Procedure of the House.
  MR. ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe): I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can see his way, without loss of time, to propose to the House the setting up of some machinery, of such a nature as to be satisfactory to the House, the operation of which will secure a reasonable and systematic allocation of time as between different classes of business and measures and different parts of the same measure, and avoid the necessity of harsh and summary applications of what has become known as the guillotine closure.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think, as I have often said before, that this would be a most desirable object; and I shall be glad if time can be found to introduce regulations to give effect to it.

  Wreck of the "Berlin."
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to give public expression to the warm feeling of gratitude felt by the British people towards the Prince Consort of the Netherlands and the Dutch lifeboat men

  1451
  for their heroic and successful attempts to save the lives of the survivors from the wreck of the Berlin.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps my best course will be to read to the House a telegram sent yesterday by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the British Minister at the Hague "I request you to convey to H.R.H. the Prince Consort and to the Dutch lifeboat crews on behalf of His Majesty's Government our warm appreciation of their gallant and heroic conduct in rescuing the survivors of the shipwreck at the Hook of Holland and our deep gratitude for the splendid and effective help given to those in distress. You should supply me with a list of the lifeboat crews to whom we should like to give suitable rewards for their courageous service." I would add that His Majesty the King, with the keen appreciation which he always exhibits of gallant actions, especially in relief of distress, yesterday communicated to the Prince Consort of the Netherlands his desire to confer upon him the Grand Cross of the Bath, and his Royal Highness has accepted the Honour. I am sure that the House will be glad that such speedy recognition has been made of the conspicuous gallantry and devotion shown in the efforts to mitigate this deplorable catastrophe.
  MR. JOYCE (Limerick): Don't forget Sperling.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON:reported from the Committee of Selection:—That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following Fifteen Members, in respect of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill: Lord Edmund Talbot, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Sir John Kennaway, Sir William Brampton Gurdon, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Sir Gilbert Parker, Sir Lewis M'Iver Mr. Hambro, Mr. Barker, Mr. Jesse Collings, Sir Andrew Torrance, Mr. Tomkinson, and Mr. Acland.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee:—That they had selected the following Seven Members to be the Panel to serve on Un-
1452
opposed Bill Committees under Standing Order No. 109: Sir David Brynmor Jones, Mr. Paulton, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Beale, Mr. Hills, and Mr. Mooney.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  "To provide for the Enfranchisement of Leaseholds," presented by Mr. Maclean; supported by Mr. Evans, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Gooch, Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. Simon, Mr. Hay Morgan, Mr. Brace, and Mr. Jenkins; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  "To amend the Public Health Acts," presented by Mr. John William Wilson; supported by Mr. Harmood-Banner, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Staveley-Hill, and Mr. Whitley; to be read a second time upon Monday 18th March, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]
  PEDLARS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Pedlars Acts as regards persons for whom certificates shall not be required," presented by Mr. Stopford Brooke; supported by Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Gibbs, Sir George Kekewich, Mr. Walter Long, and Mr. William Redmond; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 27th March, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
  PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To enable portion of a term of imprisonment in Ireland to be remitted as a reward for good conduct," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; supported by Mr. Birrell; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

  IRISH LAND (No. 2) BILL.
  "To make provision with respect to the disposal of mining rights under Section 13 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and to amend Section 54 of that Act," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; supported by Mr. Birrell; to

  1453
  be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

  LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To make provision with respect to the application of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, to the county of Cork," presented by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; supported by Mr. Birrell; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, ETC., BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, to amend the Law of Rating, and to establish Fair Rent Courts," presented by Mr. Bowerman; to be read a second time upon Monday 18th March, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
  DOGS (PROTECTION) BILL.
  "To prohibit experiments upon Dogs," presented by Mr. Ellis Griffith; supported by Sir Francis Channing, Sir Frederick Banbury, Colonel Lockwood, Colonel Sandys, Mr. Field, Mr. Tomkinson, Mr. Weir, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Clement Edwards, and Mr. MacNeill; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 12th March, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKENNA,): The Bill which I ask leave to introduce is a one-clause measure designed for the purpose of transferring from the local education authority to the managers the cost of giving denominational instruction in non-provided schools. In principle the Bill will confirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the West Riding case. There is, however, one point of distinction between the present proposal and what would have been the law if the judgment of the Court of Appeal had not been reversed. It is proposed now to determine the cost of giving denominational instruction as a definite fraction of the salary of any teacher who gives religious instruction in a school other than that which is authorised under the Cowper-Temple clause of the Act of 1870. The fraction which I
1454
have taken—namely, one-fifteenth of the teacher's salary—is the nearest calculation I can make of what is the actual cost of giving such instruction in any local authority's area. I readily admit that this fraction will not necessarily meet the cost of giving such instruction in any particular school, and it is impossible that any definite fraction which I could name could meet that cost. I have taken the charge over the whole rating area because by doing so I shall be able at once to get rid of one of the glaring defects of the present law; and at the same time I shall be able to meet the particular difficulty of those who feel themselves prevented by their consciences from paying rates in support of denominational instruction of which they disapprove. The reason why I have taken the method of reckoning over the whole area instead of reckoning the charge for each particular school is to avoid the possibility of disputes. It is an unfortunate fact that the relations between the local authorities and the managers of non-provided schools are not always of the most friendly kind; and it might happen if it were left to them to make an agreement as to the amount in each school, that no agreement might be made, or that an agreement might be come to which would be oppressive to the managers. On the other hand, where the local authorities are on too good terms with the managers of non-provided schools, they might make arrangements which would be unfair to the ratepayers. Provided the House is satisfied that no charge will fall upon the rates of any area for which the rate is levied, I think it will be held that the Bill suffices to meet the particular difficulty which we have before us. It must not be supposed that this measure is intended in any sense to be a settlement of the education question. After the experience of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary, who in his comprehensive and generous measure of last session went to the extreme limit of concession, it is obvious that no legislative settlement can be obtained until the relations between this House and another place have been readjusted. Though the Government may not feel it to be in their immediate power to establish the educational system of this country on the basis of full popular control and the complete abolition of religious tests on the appointment of teachers, we adhere firmly to those principles; and we do not relinquish them an

1455
iota because we seek by this small measure to remove one particular evil which is offensive to the consciences of a large number of our fellow-citizens. This Bill supplies the remedy for one evil only. It takes back from the managers of non-provided schools but a small portion of the public money which was placed at their disposal by the Act of 1902. In respect of denominational instruction, and in that respect only, it restores the law to the condition in which it stood thirty-two years after the Act of 1870 was passed. Whatever else may be said of this Bill, it cannot be alleged that it opens any new principle. I am unwilling to enter into any controversial matter, but I am bound to refer to one statement which has been made very strongly in anticipation of this Bill. It has been said we are proposing to leave the Nonconformist religion on the rates while all other religion is to be paid for privately. Nothing I can say, I am afraid, would disabuse the minds of those who are responsible for that absurdity. Nonconformists, after all, must be the best judges of what is the religion of their own denomination, and I know of no Nonconformist who would admit that Cowper-Temple instruction covered the doctrines of his particular faith. I have observed that none but Churchmen, who are not experts in the Nonconformist faith, have ever committed themselves to the statement that Wesleyans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Calvinistic Methodists—to name only a few of the Nonconformist denominations—are all included in the comprehensive name of Mr. Cowper-Temple, who, as a matter of fact, was a Churchman. If it be a fact that Cowper-Temple instruction is Nonconformist religion, it is surely strange that Nonconformists should not insist, as Churchmen do, upon the teachers who give that instruction being appointed by themselves. I should be ready to admit that there might be something in this trumped-up grievance if we found that all the teachers appointed in the council schools were appointed by Nonconformists from among Nonconformists. There remains but one other small matter for me to mention, and that is as to the method by which the one-fifteenth of the teacher's salary is to be paid. In every case the full salary will be paid to the teacher, and the one-
1456
fifteenth will be compulsorily recovered from the managers. The managers will not be personally liable to pay this one-fifteenth, but if they fail to do so the non-provided school in question will no longer be maintained as a public elementary school. I think, Sir, I have covered all the points in this one-clause Bill, and it remains only for me to ask the leave of the House to introduce it.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for relieving the local education authority of the cost of giving; Special Religious Instruction in schools not provided by the authority."—(Mr. McKenna.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The custom in this House has invariably been, when a Minister takes advantage of the ten minutes rule to introduce a measure, that his speech, necessarily brief, should be as uncontroversial as possible and that he should reserve any remarks of an embittered character until a later stage of the measure. Although the right hon. Gentleman has not thought fit on the present occasion to follow that very salutary precedent, I certainly do not rise for the purpose of suggesting to any hon. friends of mine that they should divide against the first reading of the Bill. I do not think the practice of dividing against the first reading of a Bill should be encouraged; it has fallen almost into desuetude, and I certainly do not wish to see it revived. But I must make one or two observations upon the speech to which we have just listened. The purpose of the right hon. Gentleman is one with which, I conceive, every Member of this House will sympathise. I understand that the avowed object of the Bill is to relieve the consciences of a certain number of our fellow-citizens. That is an excellent object, and so far I have nothing but sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman. But I have two observations to make on this matter of conscience. One is, is he quite sure that he will relieve the consciences of the Nonconformists, in whose behalf avowedly this Bill has been framed? I, at all events, have read a speech of Mr. Hirst Hollowell [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]—at all events, he has a conscience, and I suppose

1457
if we can relieve his conscience we shall desire to relieve it. He laid it down in the most explicit manner possible that a measure of the precise character of the Bill proposed by the right hon. Gentleman will not satisfy his conscience, and he will be obliged to continue the attitude of passive resistance. Therefore, I conceive that there may be some Nonconformists—I hope they are few—who, even if this Bill passes in the shape in which it has been introduced, will not have their consciences relieved by it. And is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that he will not bring into existence another set of passive resisters—people who also have consciences and who do not take his view of the relation of Cowper-Temple teaching to the religion in which they believe? The right hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way to exclaim in rather strong language how utterly foolish and wrong-headed is the action of those who declare that Cowper-Temple Eaching is the Nonconformist religion and how wrong it is to suggest that the Nonconformist religion is supported out of the rates while no other religion is so supported. The right hon. Gentleman has wholly mistaken the attitude of those who may possibly—I hope they will not—become passive resisters on the other side. It is not that they confuse the miscellaneous forms of religious teaching embraced under the name of Cowper-Temple. They do not confuse any of those forms with the name of Presbyterian, or Baptist, or Wesleyan, or any other Nonconformist sect. What they say is this, "Out of the rates you pay for the religious teaching of the Nonconformist in the shape which he likes, and you compel us to pay for religious teaching in the form we like." That cannot be denied. Nobody says that Cowper-Temple teaching is bad teaching, or that Wesleyan teaching is bad teaching. What they have said is that out of the rates, under the system proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the ratepayer, be he Roman Catholic, or belonging to the English Church, or belonging to no Church, is obliged to pay for the kind of religious teaching which he does not want for his children, but which other people want for their children. All that those who differ from that desire is that there should be equity as
1458
between all parents and children. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury and many other people have done their very best to prevent anything in the nature of passive resistance arising on the other side from that which now exercises passive resistance. But if I rightly understand this Bill the ratepayer of this country who happens to be a Roman Catholic or happens to belong to the Church of England, will have not only to pay rates for the form of education that satisfies some other parent and does not satisfy him, but he will have to pay twice over for the religion that does satisfy him. Under the Bill of last year the Government suggested that every denomination should pay for its own denominational teaching, but they took the cost of the repairs of the schools off the denomination. I have always held, as the House is aware, that at this moment neither Roman Catholics, nor the Church of England, nor the Wesleyans, do put the cost of the religious teaching that they like upon the rates. The buildings that they give over to the public for the purpose of carrying on elementary education pay over and over again for the cost of their denominational teaching. You now propose to take their buildings for nothing and throw the whole cost of the repair of those buildings on them, and in addition make them pay, first, rates for religious teaching which they do not want to give their children, and then twice over for religious teaching which they are asking that their children should receive. I am afraid I do not see that we are going to have religious peace from this proposal. For my own part, so anxious am I—though I do always get credit for it—to see religious peace introduced into the great area of educational controversy that there are many sacrifices which I would gladly see denominationalists submit to if only peace could be obtained. But I must frankly say that neither in the tone of the speech which we have just heard nor in the specific provisions of the Bill which we have just had foreshadowed do I see that the peace which is desired by most of us, and which ought to be desired by all, is likely to be brought much nearer.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 264; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 21.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

Agnew, George William

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Levy, Maurice

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Duckworth, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Alden, Percy

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Lloyd-George. Rt. Hn. David

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lough, Thomas

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lupton, Arnold

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Elibank, Master of

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Ellis, Rt. Hn. John Edward

Lyell, Charles Henry

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Erskine, David C.

Lynch, H. B.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Barker, John

Faber, G. H. (Boston).

Macdonald. JM(Falkirk Burghs

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Fenwick, Charles

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Barnard E. B.

Ferens, T. R.

Maclean, Donald

Barnes, G. N.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Beale, W. P.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

M'Callum, John M.

Beck, A. Cecil

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Crae, George

Bell, Richard

Findlay, Alexander

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Bellairs, Carlyon

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Laren. H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Benn, W. (T w rHamlets,S. Geo.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Maddison, Frederick

Bethell. T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Fullerton, Hugh

Mallet, Charles E.

Billson, Alfred

Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford,S

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Black, Arthur W.

Glendinning, R. G.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Bowerman, C. W,

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Marnham. F. J.

Brace, William

Gooch, George Peabody

Massie, J.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Menzies, Walter

Brigg, John

Griffith, Ellis J.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gulland, John W.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Brooke, Stopford

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Montagu, E. S.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs, Leigh

Haldane. Rt. Hn. Richard B.

Montgomery, H. G.

Brunner, Rt.Hn.Sir JT (Cheshire

Hall, Frederick

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Bryce, J. Annan

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Morrell, Philip

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harvey, W.E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Morse, L. L.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Haworth.Arthur A.

Myer, Horatio

Byles, William Pollard

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nicholls, George

Cameron, Robert

Hedges, A. Paget

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henry, Charles S.

Partington, Oswald

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

Paul, Herbert

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Higham. John Sharp

Perks, Robert William

Chance, Frederick William

Hobart, Sir Robert

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hodge, John

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hooper, A. G.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cherry, Rt. Hn. R. R.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pollard, Dr.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hudson, Walter

Price, Robert John (Norfolk,E.

Clough, William

Hyde, Clarendon

Priestley. W. E. B. (Bradford, E

Clynes, J. R.

Idris, T. H. W.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Rainy, A. Rolland

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jardine, Sir J.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cooper, G. J.

Jenkins, J.

Rees, J. D.

Corbett, CH (Sussex E. Grinst'd)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rendall, Athelstan

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth

Cowan, H.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Richards.T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

Cox, Harold

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Richardson, A.

Cremer, William Randal

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rickett, J. Compton

Crombie, John William

Kelley, George D.

Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

Crossley, William J.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dalmeny, Lord

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Dalziel, James Henry

Kitson, Rt. Hn. Sir James

Robertson. J. M. (Tyneside)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Laidlaw, Robert

Robinson, S.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lambert, George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Rogers. F. E. Newman

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Lehmann, R. C.

Rose, Charles Day

Rowlands, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Watt, H. Anderson

Runciman, Walter

Tennant, Sir Ed. (Salisbury)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Weir, James Galloway

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Whitbread, Howard

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

White, George (Norfolk)

Seaverns, J. H.

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Whitley,J. H. (Halifax)

Seely, Major J. B.

Thomasson, Franklin

Wilkie, Alexander

Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.

Thorne, William

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Tomkinson, James

Williams, L. (Carmarthen)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Toulmin, George

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williamson, A.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Verney, F. W.

Wills. Arthur Walters

Snowden, S.

Wadsworth, J

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Soares, Ernest J.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Walters, John Tudor

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Stanger, H. Y.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Winfrey, R.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Ward,J. (Stoke upon Trent)

Yoxall, James Henry

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southamptn

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wardle, George J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Waring, Walter

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Summerbell, T.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wason, John Cathcart; (Orkney

NOES.

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

Fell, Arthur

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex.F.

Ffrench, Peter

Murphy, John

Ambrose, Robert

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

Nolan, Joseph

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fletcher, J. S.

Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Ashley, W. W.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

O'Connor, J. (Kildare, N.)

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

O'Dowd, John

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Ginnell, L.

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Halpin, J.

Parker, Sir G. (Gravesend)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Power, Patrick Joseph

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hayden, John Patrick

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Boland, John

Heaton, John Henniker

Reddy, M.

Bottomley, Horatio

Helmsley, Viscount

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hervey, F. W. F. (BurySEdmds

Redmond, William (Clare)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hills, J. W.

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Bull, Sir William James

Hogan, Michael

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Burke, E. Haviland-

Houston, Robert Paterson

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Joyce, Michael

Sullivan, Donal

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon.ColW

Talbot, Rt. Hn. JG (Oxfd Univ.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, R.)

Kilbride, Denis

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Courthope, G. Loyd

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cullinan, J.

Lockwood, Rt.Hn. Lt-ColA. R.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Dalrymple, Viscount

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Walker, Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

Delany, William

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Dillon, John

Lundon, W.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred D.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Dolan, Charles Joseph

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Kean, John

Young, Samuel

Du Cros, Harvey

M'Killop,W.

Younger, George

Duffy, William J.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Duncan,Robert(Lanark, Govan

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Air. Mooney.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants. W.)

Meagher, Michael

Farrell, James Patrick

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. McKenna, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Lough.

EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
"To make provision for relieving the
1462
local education authority of the cost of giving Special Religious Instruction in schools not provided by the authority," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES(SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1906–7.

    CLASS V.
    1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £32,470, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."
    CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)said that the first objection he took to this Vote was the grouping together of the four items of which it consisted. He did not raise any objection to the subsidy for steamers to the West India Islands, because he remembered the history of that subsidy; but he intended to move the reduction of the total Vote by £1,000 on account of the item "Transvaal, Repatriation of Chinese Coolies." If this sum of £22,000 in the revised Estimates was the whole sum of money necessary to repatriate all the Chinese coolies in the Transvaal who were desirous of returning home, in accordance with the design of the Government, his objection would not be so great as it was at the present time. The Explanatory Note in regard to this item was that it was in accordance with the undertaking given by the Government. He had taken the trouble to search for these undertakings, which he supposed were embodied in a great number of speeches delivered in this House and in Ordinances. Last session the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimates said that the particular reason why the Government intended to give the undertakings was that, as he called it—
    "the hideous Chinese monstrosity must be got rid of,"
    and the hon. Gentleman added that—
    "No doubt a short notice would be required in order to make sure that the labourer is sincere in his desire to return home; but if a Chinaman expressed a desire to return home
    1464
    for any good reason, or without giving any reason at all, then his right to repatriation would be sustained by the Crown and the funds necessary for that return would be provided by the British Exchequer."
    If this sum of £22,000 had been expended in repatriating Chinese coolies, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some statistics showing whether those Chinamen who had been repatriated had been repatriated without their giving any explanation at all. From time to time he had addressed questions to the hon. Gentleman regarding that particular point and had received very unsatisfactory answers. He asked, on 30th May last, whether a bare demand for immediate repatriation on the ground that the conditions of his indentured labour were slavery or tantamount to slavery—using the hon. Gentleman's own words earlier in the session—justified the expenditure of the money now asked for.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. Churchill,): Those were not my words.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: That is perhaps a "terminological inexactitude" on my part.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, it is not an error of terminology, but of substance.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG:said he would leave the Committee to judge of that. The hon. Gentleman in answer to the question which he had just quoted said, as he understood, that a bare statement of that kind would not be deemed conclusive in itself. He took it from the hon. Gentleman that a Chinese coolie could, without giving any reasons whatever, be repatriated. If, when a Chinese coolie came to an inspector and said that he considered the conditions of labour were slavery or tantamount to slavery, the hon. Gentleman said that that was not sufficient to secure repatriation, then some explanation was required to reconcile two statements so diametrically opposed. This £22,000 was admittedly, for such a gigantic proceeding as the repatriation of all the Chinese in the

    1465
    Transvaal, a small sum; but the smallness of the sum condemned the attitude which the Government took in the first instance, because their desire, as voiced by the hon. Gentleman, was that the whole system of Chinese labour in the Transvaal should be put a stop to and that the Chinese should be convinced that they would be repatriated. Had the expenditure of this £22,000 had the effect of putting an end to this "hideous Chinese monstrosity?" Had the hon. Gentleman's wordy promises of last session been fulfilled? How could they be fulfilled at a cost of a mere £22,000? It should be borne in mind that, according to the Ordinance approved of by the late Government and modified by the present Government, repatriation was only to be made at the expense of the employers if the Chinese coolies were badly behaved and unsuitable for work in the mines; and so there would be two classes of Chinese coolies—those who would be repatriated in the ordinary way by the mineowners for faults or bad behaviour and those who were to be repatriated at the expense of the British Government. That was where the hon. Gentleman owed a full explanation to the Committee. They were all aware of the gradually growing feeling in the House and in the country because, after all their endeavours to stamp out this kind of work, the Government only moved to devote £22,000 to that purpose. Passing on to the question of the flax industry in St. Helena, he thought some explanation ought to be given of the £4,070 devoted to that purpose. He had no desire to interfere in any way with the prosperity of St. Helena or to cast any aspersions upon the authorities of that island. This large sum of money appeared, a however, for the first time on the Estimates, and it was therefore due to the Committee that some explanation should be made, particularly when it was, only the beginning of a scheme which would be carried further. It would be necessary to know whether the scheme had been so far successful that a sum of money had been sunk in the industry and whether it was likely to prove remunerative, and whether this new or revived industry was confined to the island itself or whether there was an export trade. It was
    1466
    further important to know whether, in the event of the scheme being a thorough success, the Government intended to go on with it any further. He moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,470, be granted for the said Service."—(Captain Craig.)
    *MR. MACKARNESSdid not quite understand on what ground the hon. Member was opposing this Vote. If the only ground was that it was not a large enough sum for the purpose in hand, he would have a good deal of sympathy from Ministerialists; but he did not understand whether hon. Members opposite adhered to their position in support of Chinese labour after all that had occurred. He thought it was important, however, that the Committee and the country should understand from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, what the position of the Tory Party was on this subject to-day.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid that if the hon. Member introduced that subject he might be replied to later on, and he would point out that at present they were only dealing with the subject of repatriation.
    *MR. MACKARNESSsaid he did not wish to allude to any other aspect of the Chinese question than repatriation, but he would like to know from some authoritative Member of the Party opposite on what ground they opposed the Vote, if they did oppose it at all. For his own part, and he thought he spoke for a considerable number of his hon. friends on that side of the House, it certainly could not be conceived that they regarded the Vote with any great enthusiasm, because it did not go the length they would like to go. The hon. Member had referred to the words used by the Under-Secretary of State as to the meaning of the word "repatriation" last session. They were to the effect that "if a Chinaman expressed a desire to return from any good reason or even if he gave no reason at all, his right to do so would be assisted

    1467
    by the forces of the Crown and the funds to enable him to return to his country would be found by the British Exchequer." That seemed to him a very clear policy indeed, but that was no the policy of the proclamation which the Government ordered to be posted in the compounds of the Transvaal, giving notice that Chinamen would be repatriated only on certain conditions. Those conditions, however, were of a much more rigid character than would have been expected from the statement of his hon. friend. He would just read these conditions which were published in his recent annual Report by Mr. J. W Jamieson, the Superintendent of Foreign Labour in the Transvaal, who was responsible for dealing with all questions affecting that labour, also for the proclamation which was made in Chinese and in English, and the conditions made under it allowing repatriation. It read—
    "In sending in your petitions, however, you must clearly inform me of the motives which influenced you in the first instance to enlist, and now influence you in wishing to return to China, of the amount of monthly wages you earn, of the class of work on which you are engaged, and of the money you have saved. I will take note of and register the application. It will then be your duty, if required, to work in your mine faithfully and honestly for one month. If at the end of this period you are still of the same mind, and will contribute half of the wages earned in that month towards your travelling expenses, I will arrange for your return to China without unnecessary delay."
    That could hardly be said to be a carrying out of the very simple and wise words which were spoken by the Under-Secretary of State that the Chinaman might return to his country, without giving any reasons, at the expense of the British Exchequer. It appeared from that that he was to pay part of the expenses. This was recognised to be an extreme condition by such an unfriendly critic as the Transvaal Leader, which said that under the limitations contained in the Proclamation no Chinaman would be able to leave the Rand. That was the view which was taken both there and here, and in consequence of Liberal representations the proclamation was at once amended and a revised edition of it was issued by Lord Elgin and published. But in the revised edition there still appeared this liability
    1468
    to pay half a month's wages, and the other original conditions. What they complained of was that such a proclamation, couched in such language, should be hedged round with such conditions, which were not of the kind that they had a right to expect from the speeches of his hon. friend or from the Prime Minister, having regard to the first speech the right hon. Gentleman made at the opening of this Parliament. It was not merely laid down that the Chinaman should declare the motive which led him to desire to go home, but it was stipulated that he should deposit his petition in a box, and in that way it was to reach the Government of the Transvaal, or the Superintendent of Foreign Labour, Mr. Jamieson. In this Report of Mr. Jamieson we had a very interesting statement as to the only way in which the Chinese labourer was to have his grievances redressed. He described the state of things in many compounds, in which the police, working in collusion with their so called-controllers, committed excesses and blackmailed the Chinese; and owing to a system of mutual screening it was impossible to bring these offences home to them. The managers, being unable to communicate directly viva voce with their Chinese employees, were kept entirely in the dark, and, so long as, on the surface, things were working smoothly, believed that all was in order. It was when the officers of the Department, baffled at every turn in their efforts to get at the truth, set about probing into this corruption that friction arose. The Report proceeded to say that—
    "Asking the coolies to lay complaints or grievances by means of petition before the superintendent was held to be subversive of mine discipline, and arguing analogically from accepted principles governing the armies and navies of the world, it was contended that the Chinese on the mines should be taught to exhaust all means of redress through the various grades of non-governmental executive officers placed over them before venturing to apply to this Department."
    Had there been any reasonable prospect of the coolies obtaining redress through such channels this very sound and reasonable contention would have been willingly subscribed to. But when it was well known that insuperable difficulties lay

    1469
    in the way of any coolie endeavouring to surmount the barriers separating him from his employer, one was reluctantly compelled to differ. Let them take, for example, a mine on which the controller had sold himself in the manner described to his Chinees police. A coolie with a grievance against the police would on the basis of this contention have to apply to him in the first instance. Human nature being what it was, it was in the highest degree improbable that he would obtain a hearing. He would, on the contrary, in all likelihood, have a sound thrashing administered to him for his temerity. Should he reach the controller, would the latter be prone to entertain a charge against his confederates and lay it before the manager? And should the coolie by chance penetrate to the actual presence of the manager, how could he make himself articulate? The manager, not being conversant with Chinese, would send for the controller, who would no doubt see to it that nothing incriminating himself or his police was allowed to reach the employer's ears. Strenuous efforts were also made to discourage the presentation of petitions in writing to the superintendent, a measure designed to afford the aggrieved y coolie an opportunity of unburdening himself to an impartial outsider; it was held that such should be invariably addressed to the manager. Granted the latter, how would the manager propose to deal with them? He could not read Chinese, and would have to call in the aid of some mine interpreter. This class of person, being, as a rule, far from trustworthy, would take equally good care to suppress any inconvenient revelations therein contained. In practice, as a matter of fact, experience has taught the coolie to be chary of sending petitions of any kind, because as one of their number remarked—
    "What is the good of lodging petitions when the box is systematically opened by the police, the contents read, and the applicant punished by them? The fact that the box for purposes of convenience, was put near the gate in close proximity to the police quarters, enabled the latter to keep a deterrent eye on all who attempted to make use of it."
    Under these circumstances, what chance had those coolies who wished to go home under this repatriation scheme? When
    1470
    hon. Members opposite made a great point of the fact that only 750 applications had been made under this repatriation proclamation, the wonder with him was that there were even seventy. That being the case, he would only say one other thing in answer to the observation that these applications had been so few. It was a most remarkable thing that although there had only been 700 applications under the repatriation proclamation, there had been considerably more coolies who had bought out and out their discharge, and he number who had deserted and gone into the open country was larger still. When they knew that the Chinaman directly he got out into the open country was an outlaw with not only every man's hand but every man's rifle against him, that he went into the open country with starvation and robbery before him, with liability to be shot at—when they found there were 1,700 or 1,800 coolies who did that rather than apply for repatriation, they were justified in saying that the fault was with the proclamation and not with the will of the Chinese. There were evils so inherent among the Chinese that even if repatriation had been carried on more in the way they could have wished, in their judgment it would not have been sufficient. What they ought to have seen and what they would like to have seen was compulsory repatriation begun as soon as the Government were in a position to appreciate all the circumstances; to have seen it begun gradually so that when the new Colonial Government came into office they would have found the system in operation and would have only had to carry it on. Such a thing would have saved both the Government in South Africa and the Imperial Government a great deal of embarrassment. The results had shown that this system a of labour could not and ought not to be maintained by any good Government, First of all, there was the illegal flogging that went on. He was quite prepared to give those who sanctioned it credit for the belief that that was the only way in which this labour could be enforced, but what a commentary that was on the system.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid this was a vote for repatriation, and the hon. Member

    1471
    was not entitled to discuss the whole system of Chinese labour.
    *MR. MACKARNESSexplained that he was trying to give his reasons why repatriation should have been carried out compulsorily. The outrages that had occurred in the Transvaal were a justification for it. When they considered that among the 47,000 Chinese on the Rand now the convictions for murder were almost as numerous as, and that other serious crimes were more numerous than in England and Wales with a population of 32,000,000, he held that they were justified in condemning this system so thoroughly that there could not be any other possible course than compulsory repatriation. Another reason was the disclosures made in the Report of the investigations of Mr. Bucknill, disclosures that had never been denied. The state of things disclosed there not only convinced Members of this House but such men as Sir Richard Solomon, who up to that time had supported Chinese labour. A further reason, even more powerful than any other with some Members of the House, was that by repatriating the coolies there would be more employment for white men. Hon. Members opposite had contended that the more Chinese that were imported the more employment there would be for white men, but the figures showed exactly the contrary.
    THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this Supplementary Estimate was for a sum of money for the repatriation of the Chinese. The hon. Member might deal with that, but he would not be in order in discussing the whole question of Chinese labour.
    *MR. MACKARNESSsaid he was trying to show that this Vote should have been much larger, and he thought the reasons he had mentioned were germane to the subject. They were anxious to know how far repatriation was going to be continued in the future. Statements had been made in the Letters Patent and Constitution of the Transvaal, and in the speech of his hon. friend and other Members of the Government, that this repatriation
    1472
    would be continued and would be insisted upon even if the Transvaal Government should be desirous of putting an end to it. He appealed to his hon. friend on this occasion to give an assurance that all the promises made in regard to repatriation would be adhered to to the letter, because statements had been made in another place by the Secretary of State which seemed to lend some colour to the suggestion that there might be renewals of licences to Chinese and that there would be no repatriation if licences were renewed. He hoped therefore the hon. Gentleman would say that there was to be no departure from this policy of repatriation.
    MR. ASHLEYsaid that before discussing the question of the repatriation of the Chinese, he desired to ask a question with regard to the Vote for £4,070 to start the flax industry at St. Helena. The reason for this Vote was that the garrison had been removed from that island in order to save £10,000 to the Exchequer. They were now asked to vote £4,070 to start an industry to make up for the loss caused to the island by the removal of the garrison. In the Report of Sir Daniel Morris on the present position and prospects of the agricultural resources of the Island of St. Helena.
    "The area of St. Helena is about 45 square miles. Of the 28,000 acres of which the island consists, the greater portion suitable for cultivation is in private hands. Of this area probably 20,000 acres, or more than two-thirds, are composed of barren rocky wastes or clayey slopes totally unfit in their present condition for any agricultural operations. About 8,000 acres are in pasture and hay land. The tendency is to throw more and more land out of cultivation and place it in grass. This is a retrograde step as regards the agricultural interests of the island, but it is inevitable under the influences which obtain at present. Under forest, both of indigenous and introduced trees, there may be altogether about 400 acres. This last area practically represents all the land now used for raising crops and for contributing to the food supply of the natives. Under these circumstances, the outlook in St. Helena is a very serious one. Unless the Home Government is prepared to give the island some assistance, and support it while endeavouring to develop the resources of its soil, I fear there is little hope in the future. I would recommend, in the first instance, that an intelligent and competent gardener be sent to the island to take up the entire question of the revival of agricultural pursuits, and if

    1473
    the local Government is unable to support such an officer and a small staff, that a grant be made for the purpose by the Home Government."
    He hoped and trusted that the £4,000 would set the island on its legs, but he rather feared that before many years another grant would be required from the Imperial Government for carrying on the industry. Flax was mostly grown in Russia at the present time, near Archangel, and there, where the conditions of labour were cheap, where food was cheap, they made a bare profit out of flax. In Belgium, where flax was cultivated very scientifically, a very small profit was made; and if they looked at the statistics of Ireland for the last thirty years, they would find that the cultivation of flax had diminished by one-half. He felt rather sceptical about the success of this proposal, though he gave it his cordial support; but if the Government thought £4,000 would get them out of their difficulty they were very much mistaken. As to the repatriation of the Chinese coolies, in the first place he objected to the Vote because he did not see why the country should be obliged to pay the election expenses of the Government, or why they should be obliged to give the friends who helped them so much a free journey across the sea at the cost of £30 a head. He also objected to the Vote because he did not see why the Chinese, who were well able to look after themselves, should be given preferential treatment over other indentured labourers of the Empire. Why should the Chinaman, who made his own contract, be sent back at this country's cost simply because he was bored and wanted to go home, when a child of twelve or fifteen years of age, in another part of the Empire, was obliged to work out the long period of three years' servitude, from early morn to dewy eve, with one hour off? He simply drew attention to the curious coincidence that, within one week of February 19th, when the Prime Minister made his declaration that Chinamen were to be sent back at the public expense, this other Convention was signed imposing these conditions.
    MR. AINSWORTH (Argyllshire): On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. Member entitled to refer to the Hebrides Convention on the Vote for Repatriation?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member is out of order in the comparison he has just now made.
    MR. ASHLEYsaid he would not go into that further. He objected to this Vote for the very good reason that he thought that the Chinaman was far better able to stand the heavy work in the mine in South Africa than was the native. The Chinese coolie had been recruited in the north of China, and was a miner, like his ancestor, before him; he was accustomed to work below ground, like the coalminer in England. But it was a very severe task for the native of South Africa, who was mostly recruited from the mines in Portuguese South Africa, a country almost level with the sea, and very hot. The natives were taken to the elevated region where the mines were situated, and they were very much subject to pneumonia; the death-rate among the natives in the mines was very high indeed, and the mortality among the Chinamen was much lower. For that reason, if for no other, he supported the retention of the Chinese in the Rand. It was very difficult for agriculturists in the Transvaal to get labour for their farms—he was speaking of two or three years ago. A gentleman who came over here in connection with the South African Exhibition, and who had had a great deal to do with farmers, both Boer and Briton, said that before the advent of the Chinaman he was always having complaints that the farmers could not get labourers, but that since the Chinaman had arrived he had not had a single complaint from the Boer farmers that they were short of labour. He thought that should be taken into account when they were discussing the subject of repatriation, and whether it was wise or not.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid his hon. friend was not now referring to repatriation of Chinamen by State aid, but to the general question of diminution of labour on the land. Was it not so?
    MR. ASHLEYsaid he did not think so, and he would be called to order by the Chairman if he was out of order. Surely if 750 Chinamen were sent home their places would have to be filled up by

    1475
    a certain number of natives from other places. At any rate, they knew that this Vote for the repatriation of the Chinese labourers was a result of the last general election. Not only were a large number in the Transvaal in favour of Chinese labour, but they said that they would not send away the Chinamen until their places were taken by natives.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid it might accelerate the Estimates if he made a brief attempt to give information to hon. Gentlemen who had asked questions with regard to the grant to St. Helena and with reference to the repatriation of the Chinese labourers. Hon. Members knew well that the policy of military and naval concentration was inaugurated, and very properly inaugurated, under the late Government, and had been carried out and extended under His Majesty's present advisers. The withdrawal of the garrison of 250 men or thereabouts from St. Helena had struck a heavy blow at the economic prosperity of the island. The island had already suffered by the diversion of ocean-borne traffic due to the opening of the Suez Canal, and it had been maintained at an artificial level of development owing to the custom afforded by the presence of the British garrison. Now, all of a sudden, for reasons connected with Imperial policy, it had been decided that the garrison should be withdrawn, and a great and sensible shrinkage in the means of livelihood of the people in the island had necessarily followed. He appealed with some confidence to the Committee to say that an Imperial obligation rested upon us to do something to maintain the people of St. Helena. For very many years past, since the island had been in our possession, we had used it for various purposes, some of a great and some of a small and less imposing character, and no doubt our use of it as a military and coaling station had been the principal cause of the maintenance of its people at the existing level. If, all of a sudden, in changing their policy for larger considerations, the Government were to leave those islanders wholly to their fate and make no attempt to lower them gradually to a new level—a new
    1476
    economic standard—which would prevail there after the troops were gone, they would be justly blamable by the Committee. What then was to be done? The Government had done everything in their power; they had practised most severe retrenchment over the whole of the salaries of officials throughout the island, feeling that this was preferable to the dismissal of individuals, and that it would spread the sacrifice more evenly. In the second place, they had looked about for remedies, and the Vote by no means exhausted the remedies under consideration. Something might be done if arrangements could be made by which British warships at intervals revictualled at the island. The islanders had been encouraged to keep some 1,500 head of cattle, thus affording the means for an important food supply in time of war. It might be possible, though this was a matter for arrangement by the Admiralty, that ships calling at intervals might afford some kind of market to the islanders for vegetables and live stock. But above all it was thought that some attempt should be made to give St. Helena a self-supporting industry. After much consideration it had been thought that the best prospect that offered itself was by the development and extension of the growth of flax for export and not for local consumption. The Report of Sir Daniel Morris was valuable in this connection, and he had done excellent work in the West Indies as head of the Department of Agriculture. Sir Daniel Morris recommended the cultivation of New Zealand flax and the export of fibre for papermaking, and upon this the Government had proceeded with circumspection, for they were avowedly embarking upon a measure of relief, and not essentially an economic experiment, for a situation of acute distress arising owing to a sudden alteration in Imperial policy. They had arranged that an expert should proceed from New Zealand to supervise the introduction of the new industry into the island; and the £4,070 in the Estimate would provide not merely for grants to assist individual cultivators to grow flax, but also machinery for crushing the leaves and preparing the material for shipment, for engine buildings and the application of water-power, drying-sheds, and various processes of detail, and also a grant of £500 for supply of

    1477
    seed to small landholders. This was a better method of assistance than a mere grant in aid from which the ordinary native population would derive small advantage. The Government would not proceed further than expert opinion encouraged and results justified; but if good fortune attended their efforts, possibly—though a little more money would be required in the future—the island would gain a valuable asset, forming from year to year a spring of wealth, modest in quantity, but affording some compensation for the distress occasioned by the withdrawal of the garrison. It would not be a recurring grant, but it was quite possible that the House might be asked for a grant to carry on the civil administration.
    A more important and less attractive question raised was that of the repatriation of Chinese coolies from South Africa. He was sorry to hear his hon. friend refer to the New Hebrides Convention. It would be disorderly for him to press his remarks with any detail; but he would have thought that his hon. friend, who attended discussion in the House very closely and endeavoured to maintain his points with scrupulous fairness, would have realised that there was absolutely no analogy whatever, and that it was not true, if he might say so without discourtesy, that, under the New Hebrides Convention labourers, girls, and young children could be forced to work from sunrise to sunset. He would not argue that in detail now, but would be quite prepared to do so whenever the rules of the House allowed the subject to be brought forward, and to cast some illumination on the motives which animated their activity in this matter. [An Hon. Member: Do not impute motives.] He was not imputing motives; on the contrary he indicated that. But the time for dealing with that matter had not arrived. Hon. Members had spoken of the Grant in Aid of repatriation. A vote of £22,000 was asked for, and what was the policy which led to this item of expenditure? The Government objected to certain provisions, certain characteristics, in the Ordinance for the importation of Chinese labour into the Transvaal. It was not in the power of the Government to alter or remove all the provisions they objected to, but they saw that they could provide
    1478
    security for no man's being forced, through want of funds, to continue to subject himself to those conditions against his will; they provided for this by a very modest, but necessarily complicated, method, so that the coolie, from want of money, should not be prevented from availing himself of a clause in his indentures which entitled him to purchase his discharge on payment of the actual cost of his importation to South Africa, namely £17. The Committee knew the whole history of the transaction from beginning to end, and he, speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government, had nothing to be ashamed of in the matter. They had never expected, never intended, State-aided repatriation to lead to a general exodus of Chinese coolies from the Rand. What they wanted was that a man driven to desperation—so anxious to quit employment he disliked that he would run the risk of desertion and would become a wanderer and an outlaw rather than continue his employment—what they wanted was to find another way, to provide an emergency exit, enabling such a man to find his way back to his own country during the transition period between the accession of the present Government to power and the election of responsible Ministers in the Transvaal. The hon. Member for Newbury had quoted a sentence from a speech which he (Mr. Churchill) delivered at the beginning of the session, and said that the proposal of the Government did not come up to the expectations excited by that speech; but it would be seen, by reference to the report of that speech, that, though assistance was to be given if the desire of a coolie to return was sincere, whether he gave good reason or no reason, it was always contemplated that some guarantee of sincerity in the desire should be introduced, the guarantee of sincerity taking the form, perhaps, of a reduction in their wages, or of a period of notice. He thought the Government had endeavoured to carry that out very cordially and fully. The instructions to that effect were contained in the telegram which Lord Elgin sent to Lord Selborne on 18th February, 1906. What had been the results of that policy? Since the announcement of the proclamation on the subject about 1,500 coolies had applied to be repatriated at the Government expense. About 750

    1479
    had been so repatriated. Others had been repatriated under the provisions of the Labour Ordinance at the cost of their employers, because they were bad characters. The Government did not intend to charge to British funds any item of expense in connection with Chinese labour which, by a fair construction of the Ordinance, could be put upon the employers. Others, again, had been repatriated at their own expense, because they were found to be in possession of money which would enable them to purchase their discharge in the ordinary way, and, therefore, could not be described as being prevented by want of funds from returning home. A small number who had made application to be repatriated had been refused on various grounds. In one case the ground of refusal was that there was, on the part of a number of coolies who asked to be repatriated at the Government expense, a plot to murder another coolie who was going home on board the same ship. He thought there were about 137 coolies who had applied for repatriation and afterwards withdrawn their request, stating that they preferred to work out their indentures. The cost of repatriation was likely to vary from time to time, principally because the importation of coolies into South Africa, which had gone on during the last two years of the late Government, having now come absolutely to an end, there were no ships returning to China with whom special arrangements could be made. At any rate, the first batch of repatriated coolies cost £28 per head; a second batch of 285 cost £22 10s. per head; and a third batch of 214 cost £25 per head. He trusted the Committee would pass the Vote without much disputation or opposition, So much for the past. The hon. Member for Newbury had asked what was going to happen in the future. It was always difficult to predict what the action of their own Government or the House of Commons would be in the future. But it was still more difficult to forecast the future when they were dealing with another Government and another Assembly which were just called into being and were about to be installed in the place of power. He, therefore, could not attempt to make any definite statement as to the exact detailed policy which His Majesty's Government would pursue. They must
    1480
    first know what the character, complexion, and opinion of the new Transvaal Assembly and Government would be; and especially their attitude in regard to the Chinese labour question. He was very hopeful that they would be a Government and an Assembly opposed altogether to the system of Chinese indentured labour; and if that were so he did not anticipate any difficulty in coming to a satisfactory arrangement with them for the winding up of this labour experiment, which had proved so great a disadvantage to South Africa, and had introduced such complications in the relations of the home Government with that Colony.
    MR. LYTTELTONsaid he would not trouble the Committee very long, because he did not think the speech of the Under-Secretary had introduced anything except what they knew very well before. Indeed, the hon. Member had not furnished any answer at all to the hon. Member for Newbury. He himself was concerned only with the present condition of things in the Transvaal in so far as it related to the policy of His Majesty's late advisers. He agreed with what the Under-Secretary had said as to the policy of the late Government, as well as of the present Government, to concentrate and reduce Colonial garrisons. The result of that policy must be a very considerable saving to the country. Unfortunately, it had done injury to St. Helena; and the action of the Government in establishing an industry for the good of the inhabitants had his hearty approval. Of course, they must watch its developments and see whether the anticipations which the Government had made were successful. What they had done up to the present moment did not, by any means, prevent criticism being made in the future if the results they anticipated did not occur. The Committee were asked to vote £22,000 for the repatriation of Chinese coolies. The inference which he drew from the speech of the Under-Secretary was one which ought to be satisfactory to every Member of the House. He did not care what hon. Gentlemen had said in the country; he did not care how many of his friends had been turned out of their seats in consequence of the representations which were made at the time of the election,

    1481
    and more particularly the representations which were made of the suffering, misery, and ill-usage of the Chinese. They all knew what these representations were; many of them had good reason to know what their effect was, and they could no undo that until a future occasion. But they could point out how far these representations had been contradicted by the inexorable logic of facts. As he understood, this policy of repatriation had been adopted by His Majesty's Government against the desire and advice of Lord Selborne. It amounted to an invitation to these so-called ill-used and miserable slaves to come out of their bondage and return home. They were, in fact, to quote the picturesque language of a member of the Government, asked to go back to China in the steam yachts of His Majesty's Government at the expense of His Majesty's Government. What was the response of these poor unhappy men who, we were told on countless platforms, were suffering a grievious wrong? People in South Africa, and on countless platforms in this country, had endeavoured to persuade these poor unhappy men that they were suffering from some grievance. And how did the poor bondsmen reply? Why, after the hon. Member for Newbury and an hon. Gentleman distinguished in India, had settled and re-settled the notice which was to invite them to go home at this Government's expense, and after every possible provision had been made for their comfort and protection, ninety-nine out of every 100 of these bondsmen refused to go. The result was that with a Government bitterly hostile to the experiment of Chinese labour, and desiring, above all things, to prove that it was slavery, that the Chinese were illused and had to work under conditions which they greatly disliked, only 1 per cent. of the coolies accepted the offer of repatriation. He was fully aware that, however well used the Chinese were—and there was no question that they had been thoroughly well used—[Cries of "No, no" and "Flogged."]—that did not wholly conclude the subject. Some hon. Members thought that from the point of view of the inhabitants of the Transvaal, it was undesirable that the Chinese should be there, and doing the work which they were doing. But he would put this point to those who took that view—a view with
    1482
    which he had no sympathy. His Majesty's Government had now erected the Transvaal into a self-governing Colony, and the result of the election was known to all, as well as the attitude taken by all Parties with respect to Chinese labour. The attitude he himself had taken was that Chinese labour should not be a permanent, but a temporary experiment, and, so far as he understood the telegram which Lord Elgin sent at the beginning of his tenure of office, the Secretary of State also really accepted that view [Ministerial cries of dissent]. Everybody in the Transvaal took that view too—they wished to supplement native labour; they did not wish to have forced native labour; they wanted the mines to be worked on full time; but when there was a reasonable prospect of replacing the Chinese labour by native labour—[An Hon. Member: Or by machinery]—well, or by machinery, or by any other legitimate means, no one wished the Chinese to remain in the Transvaal any longer. From the Chinese point of view, the success of the experiment had been absolutely established. [Ministerial Cries of "No."] He maintained that that was proved by their action, and any other objections must be from the point of view of the inhabitants of the Transvaal. It was not for us, from our eminence here, to prescribe to the inhabitants of the Transvaal what was good for them, now that they had self-government. They were judges of their own problems, and quite as good judges as we of the moral and economic conditions under which this experiment was proceeding. If they took the view that the experiment ought to cease, no one on the Opposition side of the House would dream for a moment of interfering with their decision. But once we had satisfied ourselves that everything had been done by scrupulous care for the comfort and proper well-being and convenience of the Chinese, we must surely let the people of the Transvaal judge, unless we were going to enter into a controversy which might have the gravest consequences. We could only say: "Whatever opinions we have held here, and whatever follies we may have uttered at the general election, you must decide." No sensible or modest man would say that the opinion of the people of this country in respect to this problem was entitled to greater weight than the deliberate opinion of the people

    1483
    of the Transvaal who now enjoyed self-government. As to flogging, it seemed to him that the hon. Member for Newbury had given, quite unintentionally, of course, the impression to the Committee that it was only by the action of His Majesty's present Government that any irregularities of that kind had been corrected. The fact was that these irregularities had been stopped so far back as June, 1905.
    mr. J. WARD: Then the Chinese were flogged; you admit that.
    MR. LYTTELTONsaid he hoped the hon. Member would spare him these interruptions, which were not very courteous, and attend to his observations.
    MR. J. WARD: On a point of order; the right hon. Gentleman a minute ago stated that the coolies were never ill-treated, but now he has admitted they were logged.
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was in possession, and the matter raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent was not a point of order.
    MR. LYTTELTONsaid it would be ridiculous for anyone to pretend that no irregularities had ever taken place; but so scrupulous was he that everyone should know before the election what had taken place, that at Leamington, as well as in a Blue-book, he had called specific attention to these irregularities.
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was out of order in dealing with these old controversies on this Vote.
    MR. LYTTELTONsaid he was replying to statements made by the hon. Member for Newbury, but he would not pursue the subject further than to say that since June, 1905, there had not been a shred of evidence of such irregularity, and the late Government did not go out of power until the following November. He would once more beg hon. Members to consider whether this problem had not now been shifted to another scene, and whether it would not be infinitely better for this country, and for the Transvaal, that, upon problems with
    1484
    which the latter had a far more intimate acquaintance than anyone in this House, the people of the Transvaal should now be left to judge for themselves.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid the right hon. Gentleman opposite had travelled over a wide field, and he trusted he might be allowed to reply to him without reference merely to the repatriation of the Chinese or the £22,000. The right hon. Gentleman had complained of interruptions from below the gangway. No one meant any personal discourtesy to him; there was no one for whom all parts of the House had a greater respect. The only thing was that he did try them rather severely when he stood up and tried to make them believe that, because this particular sum of £22,000 was a small amount, the whole Chinese experiment had been found to be a complete success, that all the evils they prophesied were non-existent, and that they might now wash their hands of the arrangement.
    MR. LYTTELTON: That was not my argument. What I said was that the refusal of the Chinese to accept repatriation at the Government expense is a proof that they are not ill-used or unhappy.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that was the point made, but it was further amplified by the right hon. Gentleman, and it was when those amplifications were brought in that really it was more than human nature could bear. The truth was that the experiment had been a ghastly failure, and no one knew it better than the right hon. Gentleman. The policy of repatriation, for which they were now asked to vote this sum, was made necessary because the state of crime within the compounds had become so great and so alarming that some means had to be found by which any coolie who wished to escape could do so without becoming an outlaw. They had repatriated 6,000, and was it possible to get away from the fact that they must have palliations of this accursed and detestable system, because, wherever they checked the evil in one direction, it broke out in another? It was the direct result of importing a servile class into a civilised community. The only regret they had was they could not repatriate them all. With regard to the question addressed by his hon. friend the Member for Newbury

    1485
    to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, it was quite plain that Chinese labour must come to an end under the terms of the Ordinance. There could be no renewals under the Ordinance. Therefore in June next the Chinese who had finished their three years—about 15,000—would begin to return. Under no possible circumstances could any more Chinese be enlisted in China for service under servile conditions. It was, therefore, perfectly apparent that the Chinese experiment must come to an end within three or four years from to-day. That was the condition on which self-government was granted. The words used in the Letters Patent clearly put an end to anything in the nature of the compound system, and, unless they were going to admit these people as citizens, they could not have any more. Therefore the principle of free or not at all for which the whole of the Liberal Party had contended so fiercely and so long, and from which it would never recede, was now established, nor was there any chance that complications would ensue of any serious nature. The right hon. Gentleman opposite laughed. He seemed to view almost with glee the difficulties which must supervene in dealing with a self-governing Colony.
    MR. LYTTELTON: It was the portrait of the Liberal Party I was laughing at.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid the right hon. Gentleman was once a distinguished Member of the Liberal Party, and he would have thought that he would have been rejoiced with the fact that the Liberal Party was pledged to the principle that whoever came under the British flag should come free or not at all. (Opposition cries of "New Hebrides!"] The New Hebrides were not under the British flag, and none of these servile conditions of service or residence did in point of fact obtain there, and the whole comparison was a farrago of nonsense. It did not surely become his right hon. friend opposite to laugh at the possibility of a conflict with a self-governing Colony in getting rid of a system which this country could not possibly agree to, which this country never did agree to, which the people of that Colony never agreed to, and which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends,
    1486
    being, as they now knew, a small minority, forced upon that country. He himself had no fears for the future.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had very great sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member. He was sure that the part which he had taken during the last year or two had been taken through conscientious sympathy, and it was very hard upon him when at last the opportunity arose for the repatriation of these servile people by a Radical Government, to which he had given his support, the result should have been that only 1¼per cent. of the coolies had availed themselves of it. It was really only rather more than one per cent., but so as not to understate the case he would take it as one and a quarter. He would therefore forgive the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having been led away into all sorts of questions as to what would happen to these men who had been well treated under the new Transvaal Government.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid he was sure the hon. Baronet would forgive him if he reminded him that a man was not less a slave because he was well treated.
    SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not think it would be in order to discuss the question of when a man was a slave. He thought, however, he might say there was a very simple definition of what constituted a slave, and it was that a man was detained in a position against his will. It was evident, however, that there were 98¾per cent. of the Chinese coolies in South Africa who were not detained against their will. He had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury, who had said that he was afraid that the pledges given by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies some time ago had not been carried out. He had great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. He was sympathetic with his ignorance. What did he expect? If he expected that the Under-Secretary really meant to make some great effort to end this condition of so-called slavery, he must have been a great deal more innocent than those who sat upon the Opposition side of the House. He would call the attention of the Committee to the peculiar state of the attendance at the present moment. There was only one

    1487
    Member of the Labour Party present, and it was obvious that other Members of the Radical Party did not share in the anxiety of the hon. Member for Newbury on this subject. He would like to refer to a statement in the Westminster Gazette, pointing out that the Under-Secretary said when he brought forward this plan of repatriation that it was "an emergency exit." The hon. Gentleman omitted one word. It ought to have been "a political emergency exit." Then he thought they would have ascertained the true inwardness of this Vote. He understood the hon. Member to say that the terms of the Proclamation were absolutely useless, because according to the Blue-book if the coolie availed himself of the proposal he had to go to the coolie manager, and in all probability all that he got was a flogging. That was going on in September last, but the Party opposite were then in power. They were in power a year and a half after these illegal floggings were known and had done nothing to stop them, and then came these illegal floggings in September last that were stopping repatriation! With regard to the financial part of the question he would like to say he had always understood that hon. Members opposite would present their Estimates in such a form as would lead to no waste of time by its being necessary to ask what they meant. We were now within five weeks of the end of the financial year and this Estimate had only just come before the Committee. It was an Estimate of the probable amount that would be required. The Government even now did not know what the actual cost would be! It was the most casual way of bringing in an Estimate. He was glad to see that the hon. Gentleman had safeguarded himself as to the future. When the hon. Member for Newbury wanted to know whether repatriation was to be enforced or not the hon. Member said it was impossible to foretell and that he would not make any promise. The hon. Gentleman was wise, but he would have been wiser still had he not made so many promises in the past. Then with regard to the Vote for St. Helena he would like to know what market there was for this flax industry if it was successful. He understood that the soil of St. Helena was extremely barren; and
    1488
    he would like to know what market there was for the flax if it was raised. Everybody agreed that something ought to be done for this Colony. We had reduced the garrison there, and the first result was that we had to find money to make up the loss caused thereby. He had understood that the people would have been content if the small number who were left and who were only taken away recently had remained, in which case it would not have been necessary to have promoted the flax industry. He understood from the hon. Gentleman that this was not to be a recurring Vote, but at the same time the hon. Gentleman was careful to say that in event of the flax industry not being successful there would have to be a further grant. Even supposing the flax industry were a success it would take three or four years to develop, so that in all probability further grants would have to be made. Would it not have been better to have kept a certain number of troops at St. Helena and thus avoided this Estimate altogether? By keeping the troops there we should have been able to guard that possession, and now whatever might be the result of the flax industry it would not enhance or sustain British prestige in that Island. He thought that this Supplementary Estimate which was £5,000 in excess of the original Estimate was a very large one under the circumstances, and he ask why the original Estimate was so inaccurate, what the new £5,000 was for, and whether the hon. Gentleman would give the Committee an assurance that the new Estimates which would come up for consideration very soon would be framed in such a way as to avoid Supplementary Estimates altogether.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERthought the sympathies of the Committee ought to be extended to the hon. Member for Newbury and the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, because it was quite evident that the policy they had hoped would be applied effectively for the repatriation of the Chinese had proved unsuccessful. The irritation of the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division was founded, he believed, on a discontent

    1489
    with the Government and with the hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the Colonial policy of the Government in this House. If all Chinamen could be repatriated and replaced by native labour such a policy would be cordially supported by the Opposition. There was not a man on the Unionist side of the House who advocated the importation of Chinese labour except as an economic necessity due to the absence of a sufficient supply of native labour. The Under-Secretary had made some astonishing speeches in this House, and upon those speeches the hon. Member for Newbury had based his expectation. The hon. Member on the 22nd of February, 1905, when speaking of his policy of repatriation, said that the basis of that policy was the cruelty that was inflicted on these labourers.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see what this has to do with the Vote.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he was trying to show that the policy of repatriation was based on charges of cruelty, and that the hon. Member for Newbury and his friends had entertained expectations which had not been fulfilled.
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Gentleman could not be allowed to go into the wider question of the policy of Chinese labour. He had stopped the hon. Member for Newbury on this subject, and he could not allow a general discussion on this particular Supplementary Estimate.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he had an extract which he was about to read which put his proposition in another way. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies on the 8th June, 1906, said—
    "I do say, and it is my duty to state to the House what I believe, that after what has occurred in connection with this repatriation proclamation, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that there is no general desire on the part of the coolies employed on the Witwatersrand to leave their work and to return to China."
    That was a very frank statement. He had been going to say that the hon. Gentleman voiced the failure of the policy of the Government, and made that frank statement.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the result of that policy was that something like 700 Chinamen had been repatriated, or 1 per cent. Altogether there had been repatriated 2 per cent., or between 1,000 and 1,100. There were those who had been compulsorily repatriated because they were unfit or because of their conduct. The hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool had made the serious statement that the Government were committed by the Transvaal Ordinance to a policy which would be adopted if the people of the Transvaal arranged that Chinese labour should again be brought into the Colony, and that the Chinese so brought in should not be allowed to become citizens. There was not a Member but knew that in the whole of South Africa the Chinese would never be allowed to settle as citizens and so compete with skilled labour and with the various occupations of workmen in the Transvaal. That was settled. In the Transvaal they said that they could not disorganise the labour of the Colony, and that if the Chinamen were taken away they must have a sufficient supply of natives for their mines. All parties would agree that they could never get natives for the work to be done in the mines; therefore, they must begin to import Chinese labour. If the Chinese so imported were not to be permitted to become citizens, were the Government prepared to say to the people of the Transvaal, "No"?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid he must remind the hon. Member that this was a question which could not be discussed in any shape or form on the Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid his point was that the policy of repatriation had not been successful, and the expectations of Members on the other side had not been fulfilled. He believed that the Under-Secretary and the Government recognised the fact, though they had been able to bridge over a difficult moment in their political experience—when there

    1491
    was a clamour of Members behind them who honestly believed that repatriation would be carried out—by the policy which they had adopted and which had failed. Hon. Members opposite realised, if they could realise anything at all, that they were facing now the entirely new position of a Government which had registered its failure regarding its policy and its promise. The promise was that repatriation would solve the difficulty, and this appeased the consciences of hon. Members who supported the Government. It had not solved the difficulty, and the promises of the Government had not been fulfilled.
    MR. J. WARDsaid the hon. Member for Gravesend had based his observations on the ground that the Chinese were an economic necessity in South. Africa, but he believed that cheapness from beginning to end had been the real motive for their introduction. He further believed that if the verdict of the country were taken again, the opposition to Chinese labour would again become apparent.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid he had just called to order another hon. Member for speaking on this very subject, and the hon. Member must endeavour to confine his remarks within the rules of order.
    MR. J. WARDsaid he wished to support the Vote for repatriation, and, if possible within the rules of order, to state his reasons for doing so. He did not believe that the country was fully satisfied with what the Government had done on this subject. He believed the country was absolutely sick of Chinese labour from beginning to end—so sick that they would have been prepared to go to any expense to clear the Chinamen out bag and baggage, rather than have all this difficulty and probable besmirching of the name of a free and democratic country by the continuance of a system of slavery which was absolutely alien to their ideas.
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was again out of order.
    MR. J. WARDsaid it was not because he wished to transgress the rules of order; it was because others had travelled along those lines during the Chairman's absence, and it semed that he must answer some of the statements that had been made. For instance, they had been told that they could not send the Chinamen back as quickly as was desirable because of the difficulties and the peculiar conditions in regard to labour which prevailed at present. But the conditions were so outrageous, so servile—
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was again discussing the general question, and he must warn him that unless he kept in order he must request him to resume his seat.
    MR. J. WARDsaid he supported repatriation, and if he could only say that he was in favour of the proposal, then he would resume his seat.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he wanted to say a word or two on the flax question in St. Helena, and the bounty given; for it was a bounty, and the Under-Secretary of State had defended if. The hon. Gentleman had said he gave the bounty because it would relieve the acute distress arising out of the Government's policy. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would relieve acute agricultural distress in England by granting a bounty on wheat. He would leave the Under-Secretary and the question of St. Helena in that dilemma. The hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool had made an appeal to human nature, and asked how any Member could sit in this House and hear what was said without his feelings being stirred to indignant assertion of themselves. Human nature was not confined to the hon. Member for the Abercromby division. It was conceivable that those in whose ears were still ringing "Chin Chin, Chinaman," and that blasphemous song about the Rand, might also occasionally appeal to human nature to justify some of the things they thought and felt. The hon. Member, after his appeal to human nature, had gone on to make one of those round assertions in which he sometimes indulged. He spoke of the

    1493
    "ghastly failure." [Ministerial Cheers.] Yes; but there was some evidence on the other side. There were three large parties in the Transvaal who approached this question from at least as disinterested a point of view as the hon. and gallant Member.
    MR. DILLONasked whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was in order in discussing the whole question.
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not in order, and he could not on the Supplementary Vote discuss the general question of Chinese labour.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked whether he was to understand that he was absolutely precluded from replying to the hon. and gallant Member who had made his speech.
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division, but he could not allow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to discuss what was out of order.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYcongratulated the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division upon having got in a speech which was out of order. With regard to the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, he appeared to be in extreme difficulties. The crux of the debate lay in the challenge thrown down by the hon. Member for the Newbury Division and the hon. and gallant member for the Abercromby Division, who desired to know what the Government would do if the new Transvaal Government proposed to retain Chinese labour as it now existed. Of course in face of that query the Under-Secretary for the Colonies was bound to sit a little uneasy in his saddle and do a little bit of shuffling in order to get out of the corner. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division had laid down, in that positive semi military fashion which belonged to a distinguished volunteer, that this experiment "must and shall" come to an end. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies replied that he could not prophesy as to
    1494
    what would be the mind either of this Government or the Transvaal Government in time to come. Surely he must have known what the character of the Transvaal Government would be. He would like to know definitely what the hon. Member and his Government would do if the position taken up by the new Transvaal Government was unfavourable to their views. To that question they had received no answer, and they would get no answer. They all knew that the Government in this country would not be able to interfere with the responsible Government of the Transvaal, and therefore they would not be able to fulfil the pledges which they had given to the electors.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shropshire had, in a friendly manner, accused him of not answering some clear and pointed questions which had been put to him. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to recognise that it was incumbent upon a Minister speaking in debate to observe most strictly the rules of order. They were now discussing a Supplementary Estimate which dealt with the past, and it would, therefore, be disorderly for him to enter into the realm of speculation as to what might happen in the future. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had asked some questions which were strictly relevant to the Vote, and appropriate to a discussion in Committee of Supply, and he thought he could give a satisfactory answer to them. He quite agreed with what the hon. Baronet had said about the importance of avoiding Supplementary Estimates. That view was strongly held by the supporters of the present Government when in opposition, during the closing years of the last Parliament, for good and sufficient reasons, and the Government were certainly endeavouring to practice in office what they preached in opposition. Really, he did not think that the very small Estimate they were asked to pass lent itself to any very serious charge. The only apparent error was under-estimating to the amount of £5,000. None of the other items could be avoided, because they were entirely new matters which had arisen since the general Estimates were presented to the House. He did not think it was at all a serious

    1495
    charge against the Colonial Office that they had to come to Parliament and ask for £32,000, not merely in regard to under-estimation, but also to meet the cost of new services which had arisen in different parts of the British Empire. With regard to the question asked about the total cost of the repatriation of Chinese coolies, the sum of £20,187 had been actually spent. The sum of £87 18s. 11d. had been advanced to coolies, and had not been recovered at the date of repatriation. Against that expenditure they had obtained contributions from the coolies amounting to £305 14s., and £629 3s. 2d. from their wages, which gave a total credit balance of £934 17s. 2d. The net cost of the coolies repatriated up to 31st January, 1907, was £19,340 1s. 9d., so that the Committee would see that they were keeping a small sum back for the remaining weeks of the financial year. He had been asked whether any of this expenditure included compensation to the mine-owners for breach of contract. In reply to that he wished to point out to the Committee that in repatriating these Chinese coolies they had proceeded under a section in the Ordinance which enabled a coolie to return to his own country if he was able to pay a certain sum of money. No part of this money had been expended otherwise than in the necessary expenses of transportation. Passing to the flax-growing industry in St. Helena, the Government did not anticipate any difficulty in finding a market for any flax that they could grow, or for the waste products of the industry. Until June, 1905, there was a steamer service between the United Kingdom and the West Indies and also an intercolonial service, which was maintained by a contribution of £24,000 a year from all the Colonies, including Trinidad and Jamaica, and a grant of nearly £60,000 a year from the Imperial Exchequer. After that arrangement lapsed, a period ensued when no subsidy was paid. The Royal Mail Company protested and threatened to withdraw their boats, and on 16th August last year, therefore, a very modest new arrangement was entered into. That arrangement was a great gain to the British Exchequer. It was arranged that the Royal Mail Company should maintain their trans-Atlantic service without any subsidy, but that they should be paid for
    1496
    one colonial boat moving up and down, the islands for intercolonial trade at the rate of £17,500 annually. Of that annual subsidy £8,750 was to be contributed, under their arrangement, by the Colonies, exclusive of Trinidad and Jamaica, who had other arrangements. The remaining £8,750 had to be paid by the British Government. It would be seen that they had made a thrifty arrangement compared with what had obtained before. He did not know whether that was a position which they would be able to maintain. That was a matter of future policy to which he should not be in order in referring. He expressed the hope that the Committee would now see its way to come to a conclusion on this very small Vote on the discussion of which they had been engaged all the afternoon.
    MR. BOWLESsaid he quite agreed with the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that a Vote of this character under present circumstances ought, perhaps, most properly to be regarded from a purely financial point of view, and in anything he had to say to the Committee with regard to it he proposed to deal with it from that standpoint. The money involved in the Supplementary Estimate was not large, but the hon. Gentleman would agree with him that the principle involved in coming at this period of the financial year for any considerable sum at all for ordinary departmental purposes was one of importance which deserved serious consideration at the hands of the Committee, and particularly at the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were pledged to the most rigid and austere economy. The two hon. Members who had spoken on the Ministerial side of the House, had complained not that the money now asked was too much, but that if anything it was too little. He was rather astonished that hon. Gentlemen who, when in opposition, said again and again that Supplementary Estimates were excrescences upon our financial system and ought to be regarded with suspicion, should have complained that this Estimate was too small. He regarded every Supplementary Estimate with genuine suspicion. The whole of our system depended upon accurate and careful Estimates. It had been upon the faith of

    1497
    the Estimate that the Committee voted the original £32,000, and he said without any qualification that the original Estimate ought not to be departed from except upon clear, grave, and urgent emergency. In the Vote now before the Committee it appeared to him that they had an extremely bad case of bad estimating. The sum of £32,000 now asked for represented 100 per cent. on the original Estimate. If that could be carried on to any extent the hon. Gentleman would see that they would be face to face with a serious situation. This demand could only be justified by alleging that there had been some serious emergency which the Government could not have foreseen when the original Estimate was presented. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies had not alleged that there was anything of immediate and urgent importance. Was the grant-in-aid of St. Helena to relieve immediate and urgent starvation on the part of the inhabitants? No, the hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that it was to form part of a scheme which would take years to come to full fruition. The money was to be used to erect buildings and machinery, and the hon. Gentleman had come down in a great hurry at the end of the year and asked for this sum in a Supplementary Estimate. There was no emergency to justify the demand. The real truth was that the hon. Gentleman representing the Colonial Office asked for this money because he was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at this moment a considerable surplus to whittle away. A surplus from the financial point of view might be regarded as an error, not so bad as an error in the shape of a deficit, but still a financial error. A surplus would go automatically to the reduction of the National Debt, but what was now proposed was that this £32,000 should be provided not out of the ordinary revenue, as it might perfectly well be, and not out of the ordinary Estimates of the next financial year, but out of the surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, and so out of the fund available for the reduction of the National Debt. He said with great respect that infinitely the greatest financial necessity at this moment was the reduction of the enormous burden of the National Debt, and therefore anything which interfered with that reduction ought to be regarded
    1498
    with the greatest possible jealousy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him in that, for the other day, speaking in this House on old age pensions, the right hon. Gentleman said that so far as he was concerned the devotion of the realised surplus to the reduction of debt was a purpose from which he would never ask Parliament to depart. The right hon. Gentleman could not have it both ways. In having agreed to this Supplementary Estimate he was asking Parliament to vote money which otherwise would be part of the realised surplus. The question for the Committee was whether from a financial point of view this £32,000 had better be spent on the various purposes to which it was to be applied, or to the extinction of debt. He had not the slightest doubt as to which was the better and sounder destination of the money. He did not think the Under-Secretary for the Colonies had shown any emergency for intercepting this money, and on that ground he objected to the Vote altogether. The grant of £4,070 to St. Helena was to be subject to audit, but no balance was to be surrendered to the Exchequer. He should like to ask the Government what was the meaning of that. The only object of an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General was to insure that money had been spent in accordance with the direction of the House, and that any money which had not been spent should be surrendered to the Exchequer to go to the reduction of debt. This audit was perfectly useless and meaningless, and the only reason he could think of for inducing the Government to arrange for such an audit to take place was to lead the Committee to suppose that some sort of control would continue to be exercised over the money, whereas, as a matter of fact, no surrender was to be made, and no such control would exist. The same remark applied to the grant in aid of the Imperial Institute Fund. He had always understood that a grant-in-aid was a free gift, and he could not understand why the Government had seen fit not only to pay over the money in full but to see that it was audited, while making no provision for the surrender of any unexpended balance. He hoped before the Committee went to a division the Government would be able to give some explanation of the principle on which they provided for the

    1499
    audit of these sums, though no surrender was to be made to the Exchequer.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 312; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 22.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hodge, John

    Agnew, George William

    Delany, William

    Hogan, Michael

    Alden, Percy

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Armitage, R.

    Dillon, John

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Hudson, Walter

    Astbury, John Meir

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Duckworth, James

    Jenkins, J.

    Barker, John

    Duffy, William J.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Elibank, Master of

    Joyce, Michael

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Erskine, David C.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Kelley, George D.

    Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S.Geo.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Kinnedy, Vincent Paul

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Kilbride, Denis

    Bethell.Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Kincaid-Smith. Captain

    Billson, Alfred

    Farrell, James Patrick

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Fenwick, Charles

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Black, Arthur W.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Brace, William

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lambert, George

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Branch, James

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Brigg, John

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Ginnell, L.

    Levy, Maurice

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Gladstone. Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T (Cheshire

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Lloyd-George. Rt, Hon. David

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Glover, Thomas

    Lough, Thomas

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Lundon, W.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Grant, Corrie

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Lynch, H. B.

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gulland, John W.

    Maclean, Donald

    Causton,Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Macnamara. Dr. Thomas J.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Halpin, J.

    Macpherson. J. T.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis

    MacVeagh. Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Clough, William

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    M'Callum. John M.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    M'Crae, George

    Coats.Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

    M'Kean, John

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Harwood, George

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    M'Killop), W.

    Collins, Sir Wm J (S. Pancras, W.)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    M'Laren. H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Hayden, John Patrick

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Maddison. Frederick

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Cox, Harold

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Crombie, John William

    Henry, Charles S.

    Markham. Arthur Basil

    Crooks, William

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Marks,G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Crossley, William J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Massie, J.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Thompson J. W. H (Somerset E

    Meagher, Michael

    Richards Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Thorne, William

    Menzies, Walter

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Richardson, A.

    Toulmin, George

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Mond, A.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Verney, F. W.

    Montagu, E. S.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

    Vivian, Henry

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Robinson, S.

    Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Walsh, Stephen

    Morrell, Philip

    Rose, Charles Day

    Walters, John Tudor

    Morse, L. L.

    Rowlands, J.

    Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Runciman, Walter

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Murphy, John

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

    Myer, Horatio

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Wardle, George J.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Waring, Walter

    Nolan, Joseph

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Scott, A. H(Ashton under Lyne

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

    Sears, J. E.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Ordney)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Seddon, J.

    Watt, H. Anderson

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

    Weir, James Galloway

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Whitbread, Howard

    O'Dowd, John

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Whitehead, Rowland

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Snowden, P.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Partington, Oswald

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Paul, Herbert

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Pearce, Robert (Sraffs. Leek)

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Strachey, Sir Edward

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

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Power Patrick Joseph

    Sullivan, Donal

    Young, Samuel

    Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

    Summerbell, I.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Priestley. W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Taylor, John. W. (Durham)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

    Reddy. M.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Rees, J. D.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Coates,E. Feetham (Lewisham)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

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

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Liddell, Henry

    Baldwin, Aflred

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)

    Dixon-Hartland.Sir Fred Dixon

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Fell, Arthur

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

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

    Cave, George

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Starkey, John R.

    Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Helmeley, Viscount

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Hervey,F. W. F (Bury S. Edm'ds

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Hills, J. W.

    Thomson,W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    1502

    1503

    Vicent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

    Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

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

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Younger, George

    Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,470, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 313. (Division List No. 23.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex F.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Middlemore John Throgmorton

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

    Duncan, R. (Lanark, Govan)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J (City Lond.)

    Fell, Arthur

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Sassoon. Sir Edward Albert

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Starkey, John R.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

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

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Campbell, Rt, Hn. J. H. M.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Vincent, Col Sir C. E. Howard

    Cave, George

    Hervey, F. W. F (Bury St. Edm'ds

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

    Hills, J. W.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

    Younger, George

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc.)

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Craig and Viscount Castlereagh.

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

    Liddell, Henry

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Crooks, William

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Crossley, William J.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brunner. J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Cullinan, J.

    Agnew, George William

    Brunner, Rt. Hn.Sir J. T (Cheshire)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Alden, Percy

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Delany, William

    Armitage, R.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh)

    Astbury, John Meir

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Dillon, John

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Barker, John

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Chance, Frederick William

    Duckworth. James

    Barnard, E. B.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Duffy, William J.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cherry, Rt. Hn. R. R.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Clarke, C. Goddard

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Clough, William

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Clynes, J. R.

    Elibank, Master of

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

    Erskine, David C.

    Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

    Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Billson, Alfred

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Brace, William

    Cowan, W. H.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Cox, Harold

    Ffrench, Peter

    Branch, James

    Cremer, William Randal

    Findlay, Alexander

    Brigg, John

    Crombie, John William

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Foster, Rt. Hn. Sir Walter

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bghs)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Maclean, Donald

    Rowlands, J.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Macnamara, D. Thomas J.

    Runciman, Walter

    Ginnell, L.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Glendinning, R. G.

    MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Glover, Thomas

    M'Callum, John M.

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Goddard,Daniel Ford

    M'Crae, George

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

    Gooch, George Peabody

    M'Kean, John

    Sears, J. E.

    Grant, Corrie

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

    M'Killop, W.

    Seddon,, J.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Gulland, John W.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Maddison, Frederick

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Haldane,Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Halpin, J.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Snowden, P.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    Massie, J.

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, NE)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Stanger, H. Y.

    Harwood, George

    Meagher, Michael

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Halsam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Menzies, Walter

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Mond, A.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Montagu, E. S.

    Summerbell, T.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)

    Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Morrell, Philip

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morse, L. L.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Murphy, John

    Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E.

    Hodge, John

    Myer, Horatio

    Thorne, William

    Hogan, Michael

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    Nolan, Joseph

    Toulmin, George

    Hooper, A G.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.

    Verney, F. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Hudson, Walter

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

    Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Jenkins, J.

    O'Dowd, John

    Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Johnson,W. (Nuneaton)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wardle, George J.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Partington, Oswald

    Waring, Walter

    Jones,William (Carnarvonshire)

    Paul, Herbert

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Joyce, Michael

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Kelley, George D.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pollard, Dr.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Weir, James Galloway

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)

    Whitbread, Howard

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r)

    Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Lambert, George

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Law, H. A. (Donegal. W.)

    Reddy, M.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rees, J. D.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Williams, L. (Carmarthen)

    Levy, Maurice

    Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

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

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David

    Richardson, A.

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Lough, Thomas

    Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Lundon, W.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Young, Samuel

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Lyell, Chas. Henry

    Robinson, S.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
    Original Question put accordingly.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 303; Noes, 61. (Division List No. 24.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Hogan, Michael

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Agnew, George William

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Alden, Percy

    Delany, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Armitage, R.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Dillon, John

    Jenkins, J.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Barker, John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Duckworth, James

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Barnard, E. B.

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Joyce, Michael

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

    Kelley, George D.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Elibank, Master of

    Kilbride, Denis

    Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Erskine, David C.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Billson, Alfred

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Lambert, George

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Brace, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Levy, Maurice

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Findlay, Alexander

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Branch, James

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Brigg, John

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Lough, Thomas

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Lundon, W.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire

    Ginnell, L.

    Lynch, H. B.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Glover, Thomas

    Maclean, Donald

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Grant, Corrie

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gulland, John W.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    M'Crae, George

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Halpin, J.

    M'Kean, John

    Chance, Frederick William

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    M'Killop, W.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Clarke, C. Goddard

    Harwood, George

    Maddison, Frederick

    Clough, William

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Massie, J.

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Meagher, Michael

    Cowan, W. H.

    Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Menzies, Walter

    Cremer, William Randal

    Higham, John Sharp

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Crombie, John William

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Crooks, William

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Mond, A.

    Crossley, William J.

    Hodge, John

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.

    Morgan.J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Torrance, Sir A. M.

    Morrell, Philip

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

    Toulrain, George

    Morse, L. L.

    Robinson, S.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Verney, F. W.

    Murphy, John

    Rose, Charles Day

    Wadsworth, J.

    Myer, Horatio

    Rowlands, J.

    Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Runciman, Walter

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Walters, John Tudor

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Scott, A. H (Ashton under Lyne)

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sears, J. E.

    Wardle, George J.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Waring, Walter

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Seddon, J.

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    O'Dowd, John

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Wason.John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'KelIy, James (Roscommon, N.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

    Waterlow, D. S.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Partington, Oswald

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Paul, Herbert

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Weir, James Galloway

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Whitbread, Howard

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Snowden, P.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Wiles, Thomas

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Williams, L. (Carmarthen)

    Rainy, A. Holland

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Sullivan, Donal

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

    Reddy, M.

    Summerbell, T.

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Rees, J. D.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Young, Samuel

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Richards T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

    Richardson, A.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Duncan,Robert (Lanark, Govan

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fell, Arthur

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Starkey, John R.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Thomson, W Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Cave, George

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Vincent,Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

    Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Hills, J. W.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart-

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Younger, George

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon Col. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Stanley Wilson and Mr. Hicks Beach.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Class VII.
    2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in
    1510
    course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries.
    MR. LYTTELTONasked whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to publish at any time the Report of the West Ridgeway Committee. Hon. Members would remember the circumstances under which the Committee was formed. The Prime Minister declared in this House in answer to a Question that the information with regard to South Africa was so woefully lacking that in order to supply to the Government the necessary information, a Committee had been appointed to proceed to the Transvaal and the Orange Colony in order that investigations might be made and information given to the Government on the facts that were relevant to the grant of the new Constitution. That Committee was comprised of three Members, two of whom—he had a very great respect for them—were declared supporters of the Government. It would have been of great assistance to this House and to the country in making up its mind as to whether responsible Government should be given to the Transvaal if this Report had been published for the information not merely of the Government, but of the whole of the people of the country, whose interest in this matter was of the most vital character. The Government appeared to be somewhat reckless of expenditure on Commissions, but when that expenditure had been made, it appeared not an uncommon practice to withhold from the people the result of the expenditure. There was a singular contrast in this regard without going outside South Africa to be found in the policy of the Government who sent out at the public expense what he believed to be the inaccurate speeches of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, speeches which were not avowed by his political chief, and the policy of the same Government in sending out to South Africa for the information of the public impartial men and concealing that information when obtained. He thought these matters required explanation. In a matter so vital as the granting of a Constitution to a Colony such information ought not to be withheld, and the people in the Transvaal who gave evidence before the Committee with closed doors had a right to complain that the document which embodied that evidence and the inferences drawn from it was not checked by them in order to
    1512
    see that the conclusions drawn were correct. In order to put himself in order he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Lyttelton.)
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he did not think the Committee ought to have any difficulty in agreeing to a Vote for a sum of money required to pay the expenses of the West Ridgeway Committee in South Africa, and he had some confidence that the Committee would support the Government in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman had on various occasions asked the Government to publish this Report. That Commission was sent out for the special purpose of obtaining information for the Government to enable the Government to make up its mind as to the Constitutional settlement which was afterwards to be prepared. The Committee discharged their work with great fairness, they heard a large number of witnesses, and they afforded the Government the benefit of their conclusions on the whole field of South African policy. He did not say there was not a great deal in their Report which could have been published without causing any embarrassment to any person or any party, or without disturbing the development of the South African Colonies; but the right hon. Gentleman would see that a Report upon the political situation in a country so perplexed and distracted as the Transvaal in the period of recovery from the confusion and disaster of a great war must necessarily contain many statements about persons and parties, which would be of value to the Government, but which ought not to be made public. There were in the Report statements as to the character and political objects of all the different political associations in South Africa, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would seriously suggest that it would be a good thing in the critical months we had been, and were now, passing through in South Africa for the Government to throw on the Table a Report which stated the naked truth about all the different politicians and political Parties who were engaged in conflict on the eve of a momentous election. He was quite sure the Committee would agree that such a Report

    1513
    should be strictly confined to the purpose for which it was required—namely, to enable the Government to make up its mind on this subject. He did not say the day would never come when this Report could be published; but the Cabinet had decided that it had not yet come. Perhaps, when the difficulties in South Africa had become less, and when the healing process between the races had been further advanced, the Report would possess a purely historical value, and the right hon. Gentleman would be able to peruse it, and perhaps derive from that perusal as much advantage as the Government had already obtained. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that this was a partisan Committee—that two of the three Members were avowed partisans of the Government.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I said supporters.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Well, a supporter was, after all, a modified partisan; he was a partisan in repose. He was quite sure there never were three gentleman who started on such business with a more complete and sincere desire to arrive at the truth; and testimony to that was borne by every one who had had to do with them. The value of their work must be judged by results. The Government had been able to frame a Constitution under which elections had taken place peacefully in a land only five years ago torn by civil war, and they had good reason for believing that the work begun on the basis of this Report would produce lasting benefit in South Africa. The present was not a Government which indulged in reckless expenditure on South Africa or in any other direction. It was their earnest desire to be prudent and thrifty in everything, and that no money should be needlessly spent on South Africa; because a great deal of money had been spent recklessly on interferences, not always very successful, in South Africa. He ventured to think that of all the immense sums of money contributed by this country in furtherance of South African policy no item could be more easily defended, or more completely deserved the unhesitating support of the House, than this small sum for a Committee which had laid the broad foundations for building up the unity and peace of South Africa.
    *MR. ASHLEYsaid that before he dealt with the question of the South African Constitution Commission which was the pièce de resistance of this Estimate, he would like to know about the Metropolitan Police Commission, and when it was likely to conclude its labours and make its Report. He saw by the papers that it had held many sittings and had examined a great number of witnesses; and those interested were very anxious to know when the Commission would be able to issue its final Report. On the other question, it had been said truly that it would be unreasonable to publish the evidence given before the South African Committee, because a great many things had been said by the witnesses that ought not to be published. He agreed that the holding of the Committee with closed doors was in many ways perfectly right, because in the state of politics in the Transvaal it was not likely that the witnesses would have been able to remain unbiassed before the Committee if their evidence had been given in public, especially when responsible Government was to be given to the Colony. But he could not see why a summary of the evidence should not have been published. He, for one, protested against the House and the country being asked to authorise the expenditure of money on a Committee, when they were not suffered to see the result. Supporters of the Government when in Opposition said that the House of Commons had no control over expenditure, and that when they got into power they would curtail expenditure. They were now asked to spend £4,000 on this Committee, and not only had they been deprived of the benefit of the Report when they were discussing the question of the Transvaal Constitution, but they had also no guarantee that they would ever see it. In fact, they were told by the Prime Minister when the question was put to him that they were not to have the Report in discussing the Transvaal Constitution. On the 8th March last year,†the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield asked the First Lord of the Treasury the following Question—
    "If, before any decision is arrived at regarding the future administration of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, he will yield, as suggested, to the wish expressed by the High Commissioner on behalf of His
    †See (4) Debates, cliii., 650.

    1515
    Majesty's loyal subjects, and appoint an impartial Royal Commission to report on various important matters connected with the problem and the future peace and prosperity of the Colonies concerned?"
    What was the answer of the Prime Minister?
    "I cannot accept as accurate all the statements implied in this Question, and I do not quite understand what is meant by the future administration of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies; nor do I know who are included in the phrase "His Majesty's loyal subjects." But putting these embroideries aside, as a matter of fact it is intended to send out a Committee to report on the actual results likely to he created by various proposals for the basis of a new Constitution, especially as affected by the numbers, distribution, and social condition of the population."
    From the last sentence, it would be seen that it was not only, as the Under-Secretary seemed to think, to be a Report on the various political parties, their views and aspirations, but the Committee were to find out how the constituencies should be arranged, and what numbers of both races there were. The Under-Secretary had said that the Report could not be published because so much had been said about the aims and aspirations of political parties. If that were so, then, at any rate in the eyes of the Prime Minister, the Committee had gone outside the terms of its reference. There was no mention in the Answer which the Prime Minister gave on the 8th March last, that there was any idea of keeping the Report secret, and they had certainly imagined that the Report would be published. On 25th June, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies said the Report might be expected to be in the hands of the Government about, the middle of July. When the Report was presented to the Government on the 23rd July, the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, asked the Prime Minister whether he proposed to lay the Report of the Ridgeway Committee on the Table. The Prime Minister replied that the Report was necessarily confidential and for the information of the Government. Apparently, between March and July the Government had discovered
    that the Report must necessarily be of a confidential kind. Was it that they had found the conclusions of the Committee not to be such as they wished them to be in regard to their plan for the new Constitution in the Transvaal? The hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, asked the Prime Minister whether the expenses of the Committee were not public expenses, whether the Committee was not appointed in the first instance to furnish information which the Government said they were deplorably lacking, and, whether he considered it fair, as the Committee sat with closed doors, to withhold from this House information before the debate took place on the Constitution of the Transvaal. That question summed up their feelings with regard to this matter. And then there was the remark of Lord Lansdowne, in the debate of the 31st July last. Lord Lansdowne said he had heard the rumour so persistently and freely circulated that he could not help mentioning it, that the Report of the Ridgeway Committee had only been signed on that day, the 31st July, the day on which the Government asked both Houses of Parliament to agree to the Constitution. Lord Lansdowne carefully guarded himself against saying that it was a fact. But what to his mind made the rumour very likely to be the fact was that Lord Ripon, when he answered Lord Lansdowne, did not say a word about it, and, therefore, his silence gave consent. If that were so, what an extraordinary state of things arose. The Government had apparently made up their minds before they saw the Report as to the Constitution they were going to give to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies.
    MR. Lloyd-Georgerose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 237; Noes. 48. (Division List No. 25.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Armitage, R.

    Barker, John

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Astbury, John Meir

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Agnew, George William

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Barnard, E.B.

    Alden, Percy

    Baker, J. A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Beale, W. P.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Halpin, J.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bell, Richard

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, NE

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

    Bellairs, Carlyon,

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets S. Geo.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Dowd, John

    Bethell, Sir JH. (Essex, Romf'rd)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

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

    Billson, Alfred

    Hedges, A. Paget

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Henderson, JM (Aberdeen, W.)

    Partington, Oswald

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Paul, Herbert

    Brace, William

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Brigg, John

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Hogan, Michael

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Brooke, Stopford

    Holden, E. Hopkinson.

    Pollard, Dr.

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir JT (Cheshire

    Hooper, A. G.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Idris, T. H. W.

    Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jenkins, J.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Raphael, Herb. H.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Reddy, M.

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Jones, Sir D. B. (Swansea)

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Rees, J. D.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Joyce, Michael

    Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

    Clarke, C. Goddard

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Richardson, A.

    Clough, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

    Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W

    Kincaid-Smith, Captain

    Robinson, S.

    Corbett, C. H (Sussex, EGrinst'd

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Rowlands, J.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Lamb, Enmund G, (Leominster

    Runciman, Walte

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lamb, Ernest H (Rochester)

    Rutherford, V.H. (Brentford)

    Crombie, John William

    Lambert, George

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Crossley, William J.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Scott, A. H (Ashton under Lyne)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David

    Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick, B.)

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lough, Thomas

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Delany, William

    Lundon, W.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Dewar, A. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Dillon, John

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Maclean, Donald

    Snowdon, P.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Duckworth, James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    M'Crae, George

    Summerbell, T.

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Kean, John

    Taylor, J. W. (Durham)

    Erskine, David C.

    M'Killop, W.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Evans, Samuel T.

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Thompson, J W H (Somerset, E.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Maddison, Frederick

    Toulmin, George

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Verney, F. W.

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

    Wadsworth, J.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

    Fenwick, Charles

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launcest'n

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Massie, J.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Ffrench, Peter

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Meagher, Michael

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Menzies, Walter

    Waring, Walter

    Foster, Rt. Hn. Sir Walter

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Mond, A.

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Montagu, E. S.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Ginnell, L.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

    Murphy, John

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Myer, Horatio

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wiles, Thomas

    Gulland, John W.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Nuttall, Harry

    1518

    1519

    Williams, L. (Carmarthen)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Young, Samuel

    NOES.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Banbury, Sir Fredk. George

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Fell, Arthur

    Starkey, John R.

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh H.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    Thomson, W. Mitehell-(Lanark

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Helmsley, Viscount

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

    Cave, George

    Hills, J. W.

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

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Younger, George

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Craig, Captain Jas. (Down, E.)

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Rawlinson, John F. Peel

    Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,900, be granted for the said service."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 45; Noes, 238. (Division List No.26.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. H Sir Alex, F.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Govan

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Starkey, John R.

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Fell, Arthur

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Forster, Henry William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Walker,Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Heaton, John Henniker

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

    Cave, George

    Hills, J. W.

    Younger, George

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Viscount Helmsley and Mr. Ashley.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Craig,Captain James (Down, E.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    NOES.

    Abraham.William (Cork, N. E.)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'd

    Clarke, C. Goddard

    Agnew, George William

    Billson, Alfred

    Clough, William

    Alden, Percy

    Black, Arthur W.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Armitage, R.

    Brace, William

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Astbury, John Meir

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Brigg, John

    Cowan, W. H.

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Brooke, Stopford

    Crombie, John William

    Barker, John

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Crossley, William J.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J T (Cheshire

    Cullinan, J.

    Barnard, E. B.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Beale, W. P.

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Byles, William Pollard

    Delany, William

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Bell, Richard

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Chance, Frederick William

    Dillon, John

    Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

    Reddy, M.

    Duckworth, James

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rees, J. D.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Elibank, Master of

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Richardson, A.

    Erskine, David C.

    Lough, Thomas

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Lundon, W.

    Robertson, Sir G Scott (Br'df'ord

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Lupton, Arnold

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Maclean, Donald

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ferens, T. R.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Findlay, Alexander

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M'Callum, John M.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    M'Crae, George

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    M'Kean, John

    Snowdon, P.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    M'Killop, W.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Ginnell, L.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

    Summerbell, T.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Massie, J.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Gulland, John W.

    Meagher, Michael

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Menzies, Walter

    Toulmin, George

    Halpin, J.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Verney, F. W.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    Molteno, Perey Alport

    Wadsworth, J.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

    Mond, A.

    Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Montagu, E. S.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Murphy, John

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Myer, Horatio

    Waring, Walter

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Weir, James Galloway

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Connor,James (Wicklow, W.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Dowd, John

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hooper, A. G.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

    Jenkins, J.

    Partington, Oswald

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Paul, Herbert

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Young, Samuel

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Joyce, Michael

    Pollard, Dr.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE claimed, "That the original Question be now put."
    Original Question put accordingly.
    LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)—speaking, according to custom, seated and with his hat on—said that as it was a fundamental principle of the Constitution that before money was granted Members
    1522
    had the right to raise any question in order on the grant, he desired to know what opportunity they would have for discussing the Poor Law Commission, part of the expenses of which was included in the Vote?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question of the noble Lord is not really a point of

    1523
    order at all. The closure is a matter in my discretion.
    SIR F. BANBURYasked whether the question of the noble Lord was not a question of privilege, and therefore one that ought to be answered.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Under the system of Supply in this House many questions are from time to time put without discussion.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 236; Noes, 43. (Division List No. 27.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lambert, George

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Duckworth, James

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Agnew, George William

    Duffy, William J.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Alden, Percy

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Armitage, R.

    Elibank, Master of

    Lough, Thomas

    Astbury, John Meir

    Erskine, David C.

    Lundon, W.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Lupton, Arnold

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Macdonald, J. R, (Leicester)

    Barker, John

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Maclean, Donald

    Barnard, E. B.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Ferens, T. R.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

    Beale, W. P.

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Findlay, Alexander

    M'Callum, John M.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M'Crae, George

    Bell, Richard

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    M'Kean, John

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    M'Killop, W.

    Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

    Fullerton, Hugh

    M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Billson, Alfred

    Ginnell, L.

    Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launcest'n)

    Brace, William

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Massie, J.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Meagher, Michael

    Brigg, John

    Gulland, John W.

    Menzies, Walter

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Brooke, Stopford

    Halpin, J.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

    Mond, A.

    Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh'e

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

    Montagu, E. S.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Burnyeat, W. J. D.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murphy, John

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hazel, Dr. A. E.

    Myer, Horatio

    Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Chance, Frederick William

    Henry, Charles S.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Clarke, C. Goddard

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Clough, William

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Connor, John Kildare, N.)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Holden, E. Hopkinson

    O'Dowd, John

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

    Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

    Hooper, A. G.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Idris. T. H. W.

    Paul, Herbert

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jenkins, J.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Crombie, John William

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Crossley, William J.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Cullinan, J.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pollard, Dr.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Joyce, Michael

    Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central

    Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Delany, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Reddy, M.

    Dillon, John

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r

    Rees, J. D.

    Dolan, Charles Joseph

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Richardson, A.

    Snowden, P.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Watt, H. Anderson

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Robinson, S.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Sullivan, Donal

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Rowlands, J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Runciman, Walter

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

    Toulmin, George

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

    Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Young, Samuel

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Waring, Walter

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Ashley, W. W.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Starkey, John R.

    Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Fell, Arthur

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Forster, Henry William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Heaton, John Henniker

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Younger, George

    Cave, George

    Hills, J. W.

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

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord R. Cecil and Mr. George Gibbs.

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

    And, it being after a quarter past Eight of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND).
MR. McCRAE:moved a Resolution declaring that the levying of compulsory assessments in Scotland for the purpose of defraying the cost of rebuilding or repairing churches or manses of a particular denomination was inequitable and unjust and ought to be abolished forthwith. This long standing grievance in regard to ecclesiastical assessments was, he said, altogether out of harmony with modern conditions, and added to this was the fact that these assessments were an imposition which was resented and the liability for which was repudiated by many for conscience' sake, as they were intended for churches and manses of the
1526
Established Church to which many who paid the assessments did not in any way belong. There were two classes of people who might object to this Motion. The first class consisted of bigoted Churchmen who clung to ancient privileges however oppressive they might be, and demanded their legal pound of flesh. The other class comprised the rabid Dissenters who wished to keep this question as an open sore for sectarian purposes. These two classes, he was glad to say, were in Scotland small in number and speedily diminishing in power and influence, and he did not think this House need consider them at all on the present occasion. He would, therefore, not waste time in meeting any objections which these two classes might raise. He intended to take a broad view of the system of ecclesiastial assessments and ask what the present system meant, and by the present system he meant the system as modified by the Act of 1900. Briefly, what were the assessments of which complaint was made? They were assessments for the Established Church

1527
of Scotland only. However beneficial the ministrations of any Free Church might be, however wide might be its sphere of usefulness, no assessments could be levied for carrying on its work. The Free Church might even have a majority of the parishioners in a parish, but it could not levy an assessment such as that complained of. An assessment of this kind might be levied for a church which had only a minority of the population as members. It could be readily understood how these assessments came to be made. In the old days the burden of maintaining the parish church and manse was imposed upon the heritors or landowners within the parish, and indeed the parish schools were so maintained in Scotland up to the passing of the Education Act of 1872. At the time these assessments were first imposed they were perfectly fair and reasonable. In those days every one did go, or was supposed to go, to the Established Church, and the assessment was perfectly fair and reasonable because it was believed to be for the benefit of the whole community. The assessment was made in the time of Cromwell on the valued rent, and it was revised at the time of the Restoration. Things went on until the Peterhead case in 1802, in which it was held that such assessments in burghs or in districts partly burghal and partly landward should be based on real rent. The position was further accentuated by the Valuation Act of 1854. In other words, buildings as well as land were to be assessed to defray the cost of re-building or repairing churches and manses of the Church of Scotland. As towns extended and buildings increased, people far removed from the church suddenly found themselves liable to an assessment for the re-building of a church to which they did not belong. Working men who had become owners of their houses, and who had no knowledge of any such liability were brought within the ecclesiastical net. This liability could not be estimated or foreseen as certain. Such assessments were now out of keeping with the spirit of the age, which demanded that taxation should be certain. Refusals to pay the assessments were frequent, and it was needless to say that scandals had occurred when an attempt was made to put the law into operation. In short, there were passive resisters for conscience's sake. The
1528
Church of Scotland itself, realising the gravity of the situation, tried in 1884 to pass a Bill through this House dealing with the subject, thereby acknowledging the existence of a grievance. That Bill provided that the assessments were to be levied on the old basis of valued rent which obtained prior to the Peterhead judgment. The Bill, however, did not pass; but in 1900 a Bill was passed designed to meet the grievance of the small feuar; by it the heritors at a meeting could decide that the assessments should be imposed on two thirds of the valued rent instead of the real rent There was also an important provision by which a small feuar, whose rent did not exceed £50 in value, was to be altogether exempt, and those whose rent was above £50 had a deduction made of that amount. There was this condition, however, attached to that provision—that the Kirk Session of the parish church should undertake to make good the difference. He was not going to recite the long and painful struggles which had taken place in Scotland against these assessments. It was not a pleasant story. He, however, would take three cases only which had occurred since the passing of the Act of 1900. First, there was the Selkirk case, which took place in 1904. Repairs to the manse were undertaken at a cost of £2,000; and the imposition of the assessment for these repairs was resented. The border spirit was aroused and a burning sense of injustice ensued. The collection of the assessment was obtained only after bank accounts, rents, and wages had been arrested and actions at law were raised for the recovery of the assessment and the expenses. Four sturdy dissenters stood firm to the end, and their goods were seized to be put up for sale by public auction. All this happened, not in the middle of the 17th century, but in January, 1905. At the last moment some anonymous donor came forward and paid all the outstanding arrears of the assessment, so that the scandal of the public auction was avoided. The second case was that of Coldstream, a town of about 1,500 inhabitants. There were two United Free Churches in the town, and, if he was rightly informed, the majority of the people attended those two churches. The Established Church required re-building, and a scheme was brought forward shewing that it would involve an expense of £4,000, which was to be

1529
paid by the heritors or landowners in ten years by assessments of from 7d. to 9d. in the pound per annum. There were 146 heritors in the parish, and 100 of these were small feuars with rentals under £50, for whose benefit the Act of 1900 was really passed. The Kirk session, in spite of the recommendation of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland "to avoid friction, and take advantage of the Act of 1900," refused to assist in the building of their own church, and, so far as he knew, they still maintained that position, with the consequence that 100 small feuars who ought to be exempted from the payment of assessment, if the spirit of the Act of 1900 had been carried out, were assessed. The third case was that of South Leith Manse, which was raised last year. He had a personal interest in that case, because some 2,000 of his own constituents were involved, although they lived in Edinburgh, and not in South Leith where the church was situated. That came about because the old ecclesiastical parish of, South Leith overlapped into East Edinburgh. The result was that 3,752 people were assessed for the repairs of the manse, of whom 1,722 lived in Leith, and 2,030 in Edinburgh. It was only fair to say that at a subsequent stage the Kirk session of South Leith undertook the relief of the small feuars, and to make good the difference as they were empowered to do under the Act of 1900. A bare recital of the facts disclosed a grave scandal. The cost of the repairs on the manse amounted to £522; but a roll had to be made up of the feuars, and the cost of the making up of that roll, together with the cost of collection, amounted to £408. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, when a question was put to him last year, rather insinuated that that was not the state of matters; but he had in his hand a certified copy of the cost of collection and of making up the roll, and there could be no doubt about it. Then there were gratuities to certain officials, making up the total cost to £999. But that was not the whole story. If the whole had been paid that would have been equal to an assessment of one half-penny in the pound; but it was decided to impose an assessment of five-eighths of a penny. In other words £1,250 were raised to pay for alterations on the manse which cost £522. That showed that this system of compulsory assessments involved a grave
1530
injustice, and that it ought to be abolished altogether. That was the only remedy. Lord Balfour of Burleigh obtained a Return in the House of Lords in 1881, which showed that for the ten years to December 1879 £420,827 had been raised by these assessments, or an average of £42,000 a year. He had asked for a Meturn last year of the small feuars who had been called upon to pay the assessments with in the last ten years; but that Return had not yet been laid on the Table of the House. There, however, was a Report made to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1897 for the ten years 1885 to 1895, and the amount of assessment raised in those years was £267,564, while the voluntary subscriptions amounted to £248,500. That was a very much smaller average than for the previous period. As to the position of the Church in this matter, he made bold to say that what she would lose in money she would gain in grace. She ought to depend on the liberalty of the Church of Scotland itself, and of the people of Scotland, for the means to carry on religious observances. He had had sent to him that afternoon, from a very distinguished Churchman, a state of the case as presented by an official of the Church of Scotland. All he could say was that the financial part of this document must surely have been compiled by some very junior assistant, who, to put the matter as mildly as he possibly could, did not understand the proper way to state figures. This document stated that the amount spent in rebuilding or repairing the churches of the Established Church for the decennial period amounted to £233,000, of which 77 per cent. was raised by voluntary effort. That was stating the case in an invidious way, because it left out of the account the sum spent on building and repairing the manse and of rebuilding the churches and the manses. The assessment imposed for these purposes during the same period was £26,000 against voluntary contributions of £65,000, and he maintained that that was not a fair way of stating the case, because, on a previous occasion, they referred to a Return granted by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, making the amount £42,000, and they disingenuously played upon the figure of £42,000 a year instead of £26,000. He had heard that a good many people were alarmed at this proposed abolition of assessment, because

1531
they said that by taking such a course Parliament would make a present to the landlords. He, however, was not alarmed on that score. The Government proposed to introduce a Valuation Bill, and in that Bill the lairds could be easily dealt with. He had already pointed out that the liability of land for the burden of maintaining the parish schools was abolished in 1872, and in 1868 Church rates in England were abolished under Mr. Gladstone's Bill. He would give one quotation from Mr. Gladstone's statement on that occasion, because it was peculiarly applicable to Scotland. Mr. Gladstone said—
"I own my personal opinion is that for all practical purposes the Church of England would be greatly, not weakened, but strengthened and confirmed by removing wholly out of action and out of view all petty causes of irritation and disaffection such as those which arise from time to time in the attempt to administer the law of Church rates."
He thought that that was the opinion which ought to prevail in regard to Scotland. He had not declaimed against the state of things which existed in Scotland and which many thought to be a great injustice, and he had not drawn harrowing pictures of the scenes brought about by the imposition of these assessments. He had preferred to base his case on a simple statement of the facts, and he thought the time had come when the Government should deal with this matter. Last year he himself introduced a Bill dealing with the subject, but a private Member's Bill had very little chance of passing. He was glad to think, however, that at least one member of the Government, and that the member who had to reply, was pretty deeply committed in regard to this question, because he found that when the Bill of 1900 was before the House the Lord Advocate said—
"I am in principle in favour of the total and immediate abolition of this assessment."
Now the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of redeeming that pledge, and he hoped the Government would see their way to introducing a Bill for the purpose. In conclusion he would say that he had a stronger reason than any which he had yet urged for the abolition of this assessment. There was at the present time a cessation of ecclesiastical strife in Scotland and a desire for closer unity among Pres-
1532
byterian Churches. Unlike the case of England, there was no bar to such unity, and it was advised by the greatest thinkers and most influential leaders in religious matters. Rising men in the Church were more and more impressed with the absurdity of present divisions and wished to get rid of these artificial bars to unity. He claimed that this was a step in the direction of unity, and he was not without hope that the Churches themselves would agree on a basis of unity and come with the united demand to Parliament for ratification. For these reasons he moved the Resolution.
*MR. CROMBIEseconded the Resolution and said that as a member of the Established Church of Scotland he did not regard the proposal as in any way hostile to that Church. If it were carried into effect he believed it would remove one of the most serious blots which existed on the dignity and usefulness of the Church of Scotland. He could not see why any opposition should be given to the Resolution, but wherever that opposition might come from he could not see how it could come from those who supported the late Conservative Government, because that Government so fully recognised the indignity to which the Church was being subjected that they themselves actually passed a Bill to remove these grievances. The grievances really originated from a House of Lords decision in a case relating to the Church of Scotland, and it seemed a curious thing that whenever the House of Lords interfered with a Scottish Church question it had the same result as when a cat was admitted to a cage full of canaries. It was so in regard to the Peterhead case of 1802. Under the decision of the House of Lords, not only large landlords but small feuars had been brought in, and this had led to a great scandal. It had given rise to passive resisters and to a condition of affairs which was detrimental to the Church of Scotland. This state of things existed till 1900, when the Conservative Government brought in a Bill to remedy it. If it had been a thorough-going Act and had abolished the assessments altogether there would have been no scandal, and his hon. friend and himself would not have been making their present—he hoped—eloquent appeal to the House. The

1533
Act which the Conservative Government passed was a temporising one. The Government had not the courage of their convictions, and instead of putting the matter right they tried to hush it up. On that occasion he ventured to prophesy—it was a dangerous thing to prophesy especially when what one said was recorded in Hansard—that no such subscriptions as were contemplated would be raised to benefit the ratepayers. He was sorry to say that his prophecy had been more than justified. Let them take the case of Old Machar, in the neighbourhood in which he lived. It was necessary to make some repairs on the manse, but the small feuars objected. They said that inasmuch as the incumbent was a bachelor he ought not to have so many bedrooms, and they also said that the fittings should have been made of ash instead of oak, and having made these and other unseemly remarks they refused to pay their rates. The rates were small and it cost more than they were worth to collect them, and the levying of them created a scandal to the Church of Scotland which ought to be removed. He would point out that this was a Resolution and not a Bill, and he understood that the only objection on the other side of the House was that there would be some difficulty as to details. It was also said that it would involve giving money to the landlords. It was not often that they were accused on that side of the House of quixotically handing over money to landlords, and if this method were adopted it was possible that before the end of the session they might have an opportunity of wiping out that stain upon their escutcheon. There was a precedent for this proposal in the Bill of 1900, and for these reasons he had great pleasure in seconding this Resolution. As he had already explained he did so in no spirit of hostility to the Church of Scotland, but because he believed that so long as these assessments existed they would be detrimental to that Church.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the levying of compulsory assessments in Scotland for the purpose of defraying the cost of rebuilding or repairing churches or manses of a particular denomination is inequitable and unjust and ought to be abolished forthwith."—
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he envied the power of the mover and seconder of this Resolution of imparting interest to a question which did not appear to possess much of that quality to the outsider. They were so accustomed to their English colleagues saying that Scottish debates were of no interest, that it was quite refreshing to listen to two speeches, which he had the misfortune to follow, which invested the subject with so much vatility and freshness. It was not so abstruse a question, however, as their English colleagues might think. It was capable of clear exposition and also involved the interest of human nature showing itself in manifold directions which was calculated to raise the sympathy of many parts of the House. What were the simple facts? More than three centuries ago a certain assignment was made of property to the Church of Scotland. By a statute law which met the justice of the case as it then stood, the burden of supplying religious ordinances in a place where they could be carried on and a house for the teacher of those ordinances was laid upon the landlords. If they had regard to the history of Scotland it could not be said that the landlords were unjustly treated when it was a bargain struck between them and the Church. The Church of Scotland suffered heavily; its property went elsewhere, being transferred by not altogether scrupulous means to other hands. The burden was laid on the landlords and they were not now anxious to get rid of it. It was only by a decision of the House of Lords, a decision which the leading lawyers fully uphold, that the burden laid on the landowners, the heritors of Scotland, was transferred from them to a much lower class, which was much less able to bear the burden; a body varied in its constitution, much less homogeneous in its religious belief, and belonging to the numerous religious dissenting bodies which had sprung up round the Church. However just in law the decision was it gave rise to the inconvenience which had been felt since, but which had never been felt before. However serious the inconvenience might be, hon. gentlemen sitting opposite had the very last right to bring that up against them. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire had said it was quite impossible for any one on the Unionist

1535
benches to oppose this resolution after the policy put forward by the Conservative Government and the Conservative Party in past years. But they could retort with far more force that nothing could be more impossible for hon. Members opposite than to denounce in terms of great indignation an abuse which they had not found a remedy for and after consistently fighting against all attempts to remedy it. Between 1868 and 1889 seven Bills were brought in and each of those Bills was denounced in no measured terms by members opposite. They were told they were shuffling aside the real difficulty and getting rid of a liability that ought to remain on the people taxed; that the Bill was unjust because it sought to relieve those subjected to a fair and reasonable burden from that burden. He remembered in the discussion on the Bill of 1899 the Secretary of State for War said he would be no party to anything which would remove a burden which had existed for years and fell on every class of landowner, and that he objected to the Bill, not because it relieved everybody, but because it relieved some persons unjustly. Those were the persons who said this resolution would only be opposed by bigoted Churchmen who sought their pound of flesh, or rabid disestablishers. Had they not been endeavouring during the last twenty or thirty years to release these more impecunious ratepayers—those who might have less sympathy with the Church for which those endowments were made? And had they not been trying to do that in the teeth of the opposition of hon. Members opposite? Every argument that could be used was adduced to defeat their efforts and it was not until the year 1900 that a Bill was passed giving the relief demanded. The Bill released everyone to the extent of £50 of rental. The real object of it was not to relieve to a certain extent the richer or larger landlords, but to see that all those with less than £50 of rental should be relieved. They were now asked to consent to £42,000 a year being taken off the shoulders of the landlords. He confessed that in spite of these denunciations and although not antipathetic to the landlords, he was not prepared to put £42,000 into their pockets at the expense of the Church. He was inclined to say that if the landlords were wise they would take warning by the
1536
prophetic words of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire, who plainly foretold that this small gift would be made the stepping-stone to more serious plunders. They knew something of the intentions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. He had given a clear indication of his proposals in the Bill brought forward last year. That Bill simply abolished all assessments for ecclesiastical purposes, and sought to provide no other application for this £40,000 or £50,000 a year, which was to be put into the pockets of the landlords. It was a strange attitude for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were accustomed to denounce those who neither toiled nor spun, who lived on the unearned increment, and were the drags upon all advance, that they should now think it necessary to draw away from the Church of Scotland—from the Church which was the Church of the poor of Scotland—the means for providing religious ordinances and religious light in many a lonely highland valley where poverty reigned supreme. It was strange that they should transfer it to a class into which they promised, if their professions were worth anything, to have their knife sooner or later. According to a Return issued by the Church, 77 per cent. of the cost of building churches down to the year 1895 was borne by voluntary contributions in the churches, and only 23 per cent. by their assessors. If they put the whole burden of maintaining these religious fabrics upon voluntary subscribers and members of the Church, was the analogy exactly as close between England and Scotland as the hon. Member for Kincardinshire wished them to believe? In England the Church was vested in the rector or vicar, and was his property. In Scotland, the Church fabric was the property of the landowner or the heritors. The Church had no property whatever in the manse or in the churches of the country. They were proposing to sweep away completely from the Church what was its undoubted property, and to throw on the poor a burden which had hitherto fallen upon people who were ready to bear it, who were not anxious to be relieved of it, and who were only anxious to relieve their poorer brethren of it. They were taking

1537
this money out of the pockets of the Church, and asking the Church to provide those fabrics, which were to be the property of someone else, and over which they were to have no power as owners. So far from the tax being open to the epithets applied to it in the Resolution, those epithets were much more applicable to the proposals indicated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh and embodied in the Bill which he put before the House last year. He would say that that Bill was inequitable and unjust, that it ought not to become law, and that it would only become the law of the land at the cost of the poorer classes of Scotland, depriving them of the great privilege of a valuable public property.
MR. PIRIEsaid that certain incidents, which had already been alluded to by the hon. Member for Kincardin shire, were useful as showing what had happened since the passing of the Act of 1900. His excuse for occupying the time of the House was the deep resentment and feeling of injustice which still existed in the minds of thousands of his constituents over this question of the manse in the parish of Oldmacher in Old Aberdeen. In 1903 this manse was assessed to a collection of £2,100 for its repairs or partial reconstruction, and in the collection of that sum no less than £700 expenses were incurred. How was that expense; incurred? Mainly through the Act of 1900, by which feuars were assessed as heritors, with the result that there were from 6,000 to 7,000 of these heritors who had to be assessed to the collection. Most of these heritors had nothing whatever to do with the matter, for instead of residing in Old Aberdeen or near the church manse, which was situated in the city of Aberdeen, they were two or three miles away. They had no benefit from the ministrations of the ministers, and they had no idea at all, until the very last moment, that they were to be assessed. When they were called upon to pay there was naturally great dissatisfaction. If might interest the House to learn how the £700 spent in collecting the amount assessed was made up. Among the items were:—Statutory intimations to heritors of assessments,
1538
£81; scheme of division, £114; collection and administration of assessment, £149; second notice to heritors, £26; final notices, £35; legal proceedings, £47. Six heritors were summoned, and the goods of those who resisted were sold under execution. He thought he had said enough, therefore, to justify the deep resentment which still existed, though the incidents occurred some years ago. He put a Question last year to his right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland calling attention to the case, and asking whether the Government intended to do anything. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were alive to the dissatisfaction with which these proceedings were regarded, but that they were not prepared to bring in a Bill Last year, when told of the dissatisfaction and disapproval which existed, the Lord Advocate said that if the majority of Scottish Members were wise they would be content to go step by step on this question of ecclesiastical reform in Scotland, and devote all their energies to getting passed such a Bill as was introduced last year. Considering that ten to one, if not a greater majority, of Scottish Members were in favour of this reform he hoped that a Bill to bring it about would be taken in hand by the Government, and he believed that no greater measure of peace for the Church, both established and non-established, could be carried.
*MR. McCALLUMin addressing the House for the first time, said he knew full well that many Members around him were anxious to speak, and he would endeavour not to detain the House for more than a few minutes. He heartily approved of the Motion, which was one of great importance to Scotland. Two-thirds of the people of that country were believers in voluntaryism and supported their own ministers and built their own manses. The hon. Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities spoke with considerable enthusiasm and great weight both on church and school matters, and they honoured him for his experience. But those who were acquainted with Scotland and ecclesiastical matters as well as he was, could scarcely bear out the statement that the Church of Scotland was the Church of the people.

1539
In the Highlands three-fourths of the people worshipped in churches belonging not to the nation but to those who had contributed the funds for their erection. The hon. Member for Aberdeen and Glasgow Universities had said that the funds belonged to the Church of Scotland, but if there were time it would not be difficult to show that the funds belonged to the nation. That had been shown all through Scotland, and he hoped that when a change came greater than that proposed by the Resolution they would be able; to show that fact fairly to the nation in seeking for disestablishment and disendowment on the basis of justice. The Resolution stated that this Church rate which they had had for well nigh 200 years, but especially within the last fifty-two years, was inequitable and unjust, and ought to be abolished. The hardship was manifestly very great. Those people who supported the voluntary principle, and built their own churches and manses, were yet called upon to build the manses of those who attended the parish church. How did the parish churches support their ministers? They did not contribute one farthing to their support. They in no wise helped to make them live better and nobler lives by adding to their comforts and by contributing to their salaries. Was it not very hard that those outside, who did all this for themselves, should be asked to help those who did nothing of the kind? He would give one or two examples of what he meant. In the borough of Paisley they had thirty-four dissenting churches, and seven parish churches. In 1882 they had the manse tax for the repair of the Abbey Manse, which cost £2,820. A number of people objected to pay on conscientious grounds. Time after time threatening notices were issued, and proceedings were taken against five who objected. These proceedings were withdrawn within the next three days, because it was seen that they were working on dangerous ground. Those who took the action against the objectors were advised by friends that they had better pay the balance out of their own pockets, so that upwards of 200 of the objectors did not pay the tax. He believed that was the origin of the Bill of 1884. The question had been asked
1540
—What is a heritor? On this point a well-known authority wrote—
"Who were the heritors of the parish" The landowners of the parish certainly. He read the definition of the term given in the latest edition of "Chambers' Encyclopædia" published three years ago—'Heritor, in the law of Scotland is the owner of land in a parish-liable to public burdens. The heritors, collectively, have vested in them the fee of the church, and churchyard. They repair the parish church or manse or rebuild them where necessary.' It was in that sense that the term 'heritor' had been used for hundreds of years in Scotland, and it was something new for the parishioners of Selkirk to learn, 237 years after the Act of Charles. II. was passed, that all of them who were proprietors of houses in the burgh and parish were heritors. The Court, by immemorial usage, ruled that each set of heritors should bear the half of the expense in future. Immemorial usage, in the case of Selkirk, had gone for nothing, in their counsel's opinion, which was a little surprising. Then there was the question of equity, which, in a case where a religious institution was concerned, should not be disregarded. Let them see how the attempted change would work. Ten years ago, there was a piece of waste ground in Dunsdale Haugh, which was not worth more than £2 or £3 a year. Fortunately for Selkirk an enterprising firm feued that ground, covered it with mills and other buildings, and filled the mills with machinery. That firm had been paying the sum of £19 16s. 4d. yearly as feu duty to the burgh, and would be paying a good deal more by and by. The mills and machinery stood on the valuation roll at £750, and the firm was called on to pay an assessment of 1s. 1½d. per £ on that amount. Was it reasonable, equitable, or just that the land should go practically free and that the mills and buildings and machinery should have to bear an assessment of £42 3s. 9d. for repairing the parish manse? He thought there could be but one answer to that question. Again, during the forty years that had elapsed since the parish church was built, the people of other religious denominations had provided churches for themselves, and manses for some of the ministers, at a cost of £17,000 or £18,000. If the people in Selkirk had provided churches and manses, was it reasonable, equitable, or just, that the same community should be called upon to pay two-thirds of the cost of a manse to the parish church, whose members were more able to pay for it than the members of any other church in town?"
In this instance, in Paisley, it was the wealthiest church in the town, and yet those attending it had not contributed a single farthing to the stipends of their two ministers. They had to go outside the church for this tax to carry out their legal obligations, although they could have carried out their moral obligations by paying every farthing themselves. He cordially supported the Resolution

1541
because he believed that it proceeded on the right lines. This was the fringe of a greater question, it was part of a great case of privilege, and the sooner they made progress with it the sooner they would be able to proceed with disestablishment and disendowment, [Opposition cries of "Oh."] What they wanted he believed, was free land, a free church, and free schools. The rates levied in Scotland during the ten years up to 1879, amounted" to £420,000, and no less than £219,000 had been collected in this way during the past nine years. Under these circumstances he appealed to the House to support this Resolution because the abolition of these compulsory assessments would prove an unmixed blessing to the people of Scotland.
*MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid the speech to which they had just listened was of special significance as pointing out that the counsel, which the mover and seconder had no doubt quite sincerely given to the Church, was approved by the opponents of the Church as a step on the road to disestablishment and disendowment. He did not wish to dwell upon the historical position of this question, because that point had been very ably dealt with by his hon. and learned friend. He believed above all things that the Church of Scotland was for Scotland the national Church, that the religion preached in that Church was the national religion, and that her ministers were regarded as doing the nation's work. The churches and manses for which these assessments were levied were the property not of the Church of Scotland but of the heritors of the localities. The assessments were the result of the long historical association which cast upon the owners of land the duty which in 1572 became a statutory duty of maintaining the fabric of the parish church. He admitted that the friction which had arisen in the past was because of the decision given in the Peter head case, but the advocates of disestablishment and disendowment had made use of the grievance in order to inflame public feeling against the Church, and had resisted the legislative attempts to remedy the grievance in order to have a lever to promote the cause of disestablishment.
1542
It was inconsistent and illogical for the supporters of this Motion to come forward now and taunt the Opposition with not having removed this grievance, when the present supporters of the Government were the Party who had in the past resisted any attempt to deal with in. It had been suggested that there were hard cases where assessments were imposed upon those who had no facilities for worshipping in the parish church. For example, it was contended that an assessment might be imposed upon feuars for a church in which the seating accommodation had been divided amongst the heritors. If such a case could be proved to exist, undoubtedly it would be a case of hardship, but in point of fact there was no such case. As to the argument that the position of the Church would be strengthened by relying on voluntary contributions, and the argument that as church rates were abolished in Engand in 1868, these assessments should now be abolished, he denied that there was any analogy between church rates in England and heritors' assessments in Scotland. The circumstances in the two cases differed entirely, and if the Church of Scotland were to be asked to rely solely upon voluntary contributions she would be placed in a most anomalous and unjust position. As a matter of fact at the present moment she did rely to a considerable extent on voluntary contributions. [Cries of "No."] Even taking he figures quoted by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, it appeared that she relied on voluntary contributions to the extent of 45 per cent. He asked the House to consider what would happen if the proposition of the hon. Member were worked out in practice. Let them take the case of a parish in which there was one big landowner, and a large number of small and poor landowners. At present the cost of repairs of the manse fell primarily on the large landowner, and, it was said by the Chief Secretary in the debate in 1900, that that was an excellent social obligation which he did not wish to see altered. Of course, the large landowner took this liability into consideration when he purchased the property, if it was purchased; he discounted it in the price which he paid. He knew that there would pass to him with the property this

1543
obligation, and according to the standards of any ordinary prudent man he would naturally take that into account. Hon. Members opposite said that this excellent social obligation ought to be removed from the landowner, and that they ought to trust to his generosity. But supposing he was not generous, what was to happen? Supposing that he did not profess the Protestant religion and that he did not see fit to contribute anything of the assessment, what would be the result? They would impose the burden on the shoulders of those who were least able to bear it—on those who would work their fingers to the bone to bear the burden. They would do that for the relief of whom? For the relief of the large landowner. The Motion now before the House was a proposal to disendow the Church of Scotland in order to endow the landowners of Scotland. That was the long I and short of it. He must say that it was a novel proposition to come from the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh had attempted to excuse this extraordinary proposal by saying that they would not leave the money with the landowners. [Cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheered that statement. He expected the cheer, and he admired the candour of hon. Gentlemen, but he deplored their political ethics. He asked them to see what the proposal came to. They were robbing Peter in order to pay Paul whom they had denounced on every platform in the land. That was amazing, but what was far more amazing was the excuse which they offered, namely, that by-and-by in the process of time when Paul's back was turned they hoped to be able to pick his pocket. If these were the intentions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, all he could say was that they agreed very fitly with the aims of the advocates of disestablishment and disendowment in the past. If these were the tactics which hon. Gentlemen who supported the Motion intended to pursue, then he could assure them that the attack would fail, because the Church of Scotland was far too strongly entrenched in the hearts not only of its own followers, but in the hearts of all Scottish people. By the help of the Government majority they might carry this Motion; they might
1544
carry a Bill to disestablish and disendow the Church; they might dethrone the Church of Scotland from its immemorial position in the polity of Scotland, they might despoil it of its wordly goods, but there was one thing they could I never do—disestablish it from its place in the hearts of the Scottish people or disendow it of their love.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON:said he was not prepared to defend any principle in this Motion which would allow parish money to be handed back to individuals, and he thought that if a Bill were drafted probably some provision would have to be made by which parish money should belong to the parish. He had learned to appreciate the value of that doctrine by the fact that in the Highlands of Scotland he had observed that parish money raised by ecclesiastical assessment? was devoted to the repair of churches and manses which were certainly not wanted for the religious needs of the people. It had seldom fallen to his lot to notice a more scandalous misuse of public money than the levies which were made for maintaining churches and manses which were perfectly useless in parts of the country for the religious ordinances required by the people. Another aspect of the question was the waste that occurred in levying the assessments for ecclesiastical purposes. In the South Leith case, to which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had referred, the money wanted for repairs was £522, and the amount of assessment was £1,250. The Church of Scotland, of which he was a member, would have to devise a different system of raising the money before it recommended itself to the Scottish people, and it was on that ground that he supported the Motion. He knew that in the Highlands of Scotland this parish money was devoted to the repair of churches and manses which were perfectly useless, so far as the religious requirements of the people were concerned, and there were numerous cases where there was scandalous extravagance in the cost of the levy. He sincerely believed that the Church of Scotland would benefit if some change were made in the operation of the existing law.
*MR. COCHRANE (Aryshire, N.)said that the hon. Member who had just sat down had laid considerable stress on the cost of collection of the assessment, but he failed to see that that cost would be overcome if the Resolution before the House was translated into a Bill and passed into law. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh, in somewhat strong terms, had complained of these compulsory assessments as being unjust and inequitable. He quite recognised that there were some hon. Members who considered all rates and taxes unjust and inequitable. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh had entirely failed to show how these assessments were unjust and inequitable. They had been sanctioned through long centuries by custom and had been embodied in Acts of Parliament, and to do away with them would be doing something which would be unjust and inequitable in a far greater degree. At present the manses and the buildings of the churches belonged to the heritors, and if the obligation for repairs was transferred from those to whom the fabrics belonged and thrown on to others to whom they did not belong it would be an injustice a hundred times greater than any at present experienced. The hon. Member had entirely failed to point out what he proposed to do with the money. Did he propose to relieve the landowners entirely of their obligations for repairs of churches and manses, and was this to be a bribe to the landowners to induce them not to resist attacks upon the outposts of the Established Church? He would remind the hon. Member that the worst characters in history were not those who accepted bribes, but those who offered them. He himself was a heritor, and a member of the Church of Scotland, and he certainly would not envy anyone who would endeavour by the offer of any sums of money to weaken the allegiance of men in that position to their church. He ventured to say that no real grievance at present existed. Since the Act of 1900 was passed any grievance which existed had been removed. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] One clause of that Act provided that—
"Thirty days public notice shall be given of any resolution to impose an assessment according to the real rent. The object of this provision is to allow an opportunity to those interested in avoiding friction in the parish to consider the matter, and, if they think proper,
1546
to make an arrangement to relieve the smaller heritors."
The object of giving them thirty days was that there might be an opportunity afforded to the Kirk Session to make up their minds whether they would assess the small feuars or not, but the use of the thirty days had been turned in another direction, and a certain amount of agitation had been raised during their continuance. The feuars had been told that they would be assessed, and in the case of South Leith, the meetings of heritors were disturbed by people who thought they were going to be assessed, whereas when the Kirk Session met they decided that they would find the money and relieve the small feuars altogether. The whole matter therefore was a storm in a tea-cup. If the hon. Member could suggest some means which would prevent this agitation from being got up he would have his most cordial support. While on the one hand a greater measure of disestablishment and disendowment had for been spoken of by the hon. Member Paisley, the hon. member for East Edinburgh had pointed out with feeling that there never was a time when there was a greater approach to good feeling and good will among the churches and less jealousy of the Church of Scotland than now existed. He was not going to pit one Church against another, but let him ask hon. Members to remember the good work which had been done and was being done by the Church of Scotland, whose record was such that any churchman might be proud of it. Was this the time for hon. Members to point the finger of scorn at it and take even the smallest step or aim any blow against that Church? He regretted if in former years any differences had arisen between the ministers of the different churches, but no reflection of that kind arose now, because they saw the minister of one church frequently occupying the pulpit of another church, and the ministers were now all of them meeting in social work and associating themselves in the common cause of religion. He asked therefore whether this was the time at which any cause of friction should be introduced between one body and another. An hon. Member had spoken of the old Abbey Church, of which he

1547
thought every Scotsman was in his heart proud. Scotsmen abroad, although they might have been abroad for years, one and all recalled their early days in regard to the churches in which they and their forefathers had worshipped. It would give rise to a deep feeling of regret to every Scotsman, not only in this country but all over the world, if they were to make the repair and maintenance of these buildings more difficult than at present. He hoped therefore that hon. Members would not press this Resolution. Why should they raise these questions which had slumbered peacefully for so many years? [Cries of "No, no."] As one who lived in Scotland he had heard nothing of them for many years, and not even a whisper of anything in the nature of a general wish for disestablishment. If hon. Members could see any way in which the legislation of 1900 could be improved he would be one of the first to support them in a proposal of that character, but to take away from the Church of Scotland these endowments would in his opinion be unjust.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Thomas Shaw,)said that in the course of a very interesting debate they now learned, very much to their surprise, that the Church and manse rates, which did not exist in Ireland and had been abolished for forty years in England, were an outpost of the Established Church in Scotland. He did not think that the Established Church was so mean as to say that. It was very significant that two members of the Established Church had moved and seconded this Resolution, and said they did so in the interests of the Church of Scotland. He thought these taxes were inequitable and unjust, and he did not now, speaking officially, vary from the attitude which he had assumed in 1900. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire had said these questions had been slumbering peacefully for years, but he was afraid he had not kept himself up to date, because hardly a single year had passed without some storm centre arising in regard to them. Now it was Aberdeen, then it was Selkirk, and then Coldstream, and whereas the country was entirely in accord in
1548
regard to education, and there was educational peace, this question was found to be the bar to social harmony in certain districts. This was caused by the levy of rates for churches and manses, and he thought that his hon. friend was mistaken if he supposed that all over the country there was not a deep sense of grievance at this levy being enforced by law. No doubt it was quite true that they could not have fabrics without money, but their position was that it was wholly inequitable and unjust to have a levy for such purposes. It was doing a poor service to the Church of Scotland to represent that this perfectly inequitable and unjust impost was bound up with her interests otherwise. He congratulated the House on this debate. It was opened with great knowledge and skill by the mover and seconder, and he had little to complain of in the answers from the opposite side. The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, who always addressed the House with force, had painted the picture with lurid colours. But he (the Lord Advocate) did not think the matter was so serious as he had made out. According to the hon. Member the Liberal Party had a bad record in this matter, as they had always opposed the Bills introduced to remedy the grievance. That was because the Bills were shuffling Bills. In 1876 it was proposed not to abolish the assessment, but to alter its basis. Another Bill with a similar purpose was introduced in 1884. In 1887 a Bill was brought in with the idea that this tax should be removed from the shoulders of owners of houses and property paying up to £100 a year in rent. He did not understand exceptions of that sort. Either this was an unjust impost on property or it was not. In the case of that Bill the intention was simply to get rid of the agitator so that complaints against the levy might no longer be heard. Then came the Bill of 1900. It was said to be a Bill that would remove the grievance from those who were most subject to agitation; and therefore the line of £50 rental was fixed. The owners under that figure were not relieved, but they could be let off at the will of the Kirk Session of the parish—a kind of novelty in the taxation of land of which the House had never seen the like before. He

1549
and other Liberal Members at that time protested, and said that the best way to deal with the question of Church and manse rates in Scotland was not to reshuffle or readjust the assessments, but to take them away altogether. For nearly forty years this injustice had gone on. What took place 300 years ago? The owners who ought to have kept this up were not Presbyterians at all, but Roman Catholics. The Church was not the Church the hon. Member alluded to, but another Church altogether. The Protestantism of that day was a Protestantism which embraced the whole population, and the idea of applying to people now to support an Establishment which did not represent the whole population or any thing like it, and to leave the burden of this rate on people who did not believe in the Established Church, was unjust. These assessments were paid by owners of land and houses who went to churches of their own, paid their own ministers, built and repaired their own churches and manses. Now came the claim that these people should, in addition, pay an assessment for the manses and the churches of the Established Church. A sense of injustice was caused by this irritating impost. Therefore, when his hon. friend said that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had adopted epithets in his Motion, he thought no one who was not entrenched in ecclesiastical prejudice, but who was able to look outside to the good sense and plain dealing of the question, could doubt for one moment that these epithets "inequitable and unjust" were truly applied to this case. Then another amazing statement had been made by his hon. friend, who said that peace had been secured by the Act of 1900. Had anyone ever heard the like of that? The cases that had occurred since that peace-giving Act were these. In the followings year, at Perth, there was great excitement because the congregation there would not do what their friends and neighbours did, viz., pay their own way and make a levy among themselves or their friends who believed with them, and so there was a sale of goods and household furniture by auction, as the House would be distressed to hear. The dissatisfied and protesting ratepayers were all put to that trouble and the locality
1550
to that disturbance on the warrant of the sheriff. Was it wise to talk of that kind of thing as an outpost of the Established Church? He thought that was a very dangerous line to take, and he would not recommend its use in this House. In 1903 there came the question of Selkirk. A household defence association was formed for the purpose of resisting the assessment of the owners of house property. Selkirk was the home of dissent in Scotland. They had got large sums for the propagation of what they called their Presbyterian evangelical religion in Scotland, and that these households should be taxed for the building of churches in which they did not believe, and for the building of a manse for a minister who was not their minister, seemed to be an outrage on the decencies of the situation. His hon. friend said that this had quieted down, but it had quieted down in a way which demanded considerable scrutiny. In 1904 the same question caused irritation, and in 1905 there was irritation in Aberdeen because those who were assessed felt that they were treated unjustly; and there were also the Coldstream and the Leith cases. Therefore, what he said with regard to the Act of 1900 was that, not only had it not produced peace, but it seemed to have involved the people in more and more dispeace, and had brought matters to such a pass that Parliament at an early date must make a definite declaration on the subject. In Ireland such a tax was unknown. The state of matters in England was almost stronger. In the year 1868 there were Church rates in England, and what happened was best described in the Statute of 30 & 31 Vict. Here was the preamble to that Act—
"Whereas Church rates have for some years ceased to be made or collected in many parishes by reason of opposition thereto, and in many other parishes where Church rates have been made the levying thereof has given rise to litigation and ill feeling. And whereas it is convenient that the power to compel payment of Church rates by legal process, of law should be abolished, be it enacted—"
and so on. That preamble, applied to legislation in England, described with perfect accuracy the situation of affairs in Scotland at this moment. It was

1551
argued that they would make a present to the landlords. He was very much against doing that if he could help it. He would be glad to assist any persons in distress, but he did not like doing it by Act of Parliament. The present to the landlord argument was best answered in the Scottish way. He would take the Coldstream case, where everybody was surprised at the assessment. Everybody was always surprised at the assessment to Church rates, it was such an outrage on the decencies of the position. If it was a yearly assessment they could commute; if it was a ten-yearly or even a twenty-yearly assessment they could commute. But what would happen in individual parishes of Scotland no man could judge. In some parishes there had not been any such assessments for 100 years, and in some they would probably not be made for 100 years to come if Parliament was so cruel as to keep the law on the Statute-book. The matter would not bear examination, and the thing could not be actuarially accomplished; there were no definite data of periodical payment to enable such a task to be performed. Then there was another argument to which he had been expressly desired by an eminent member of the Church of Scotland to refer. The argument was that the Church of Scotland ought not to be asked to pay for the maintenance of the buildings of the Church because the Church had no right of property as a church. Of course, that sounded very good. The answer of the free-rent tenant was, "If I am to do my own repairs I beg of you to confer upon me the right of ownership in the property." He had never before heard such a proposal. The Church of Scotland had not bought the land upon which those buildings were erected, it had not built the premises or maintained the fabric, and it had not expended anything except that which was raised from sources of taxation. It was argued that the Church ought not to be asked to pay for the maintenance of a building in which it had no right and
property as a church. But that proposal really meant that if they compelled them to repair the property in which they were enabled by law to sit rent free, that could not be done except by declaring them owners for all time. But nobody was asking to dispossess them of it. The only proposal was that, being where they were, they should do what their friends and neighbours all round them did, namely, pay their own way according to the tenets of their own Church. He thought the true argument in this matter went a good deal deeper than it had been put. In 1900 he said on this question—
"I object to the Bill for the simple and cardinal reason that it recognises and reaffirms the continuance of the assessment with which it deals, whereas I am in favour of the total and immediate abolition of this assessment."
He adhered to that view, and he was authorised by the Government to say that they adhered to that view, and that therefore they accepted the Resolution. He would quote a little more from the same speech. He then said—
"To promote religion by levying rates is not in my opinion any part of the duty of the State, in fact it is not a service but a disservice to religion itself; and the same observation applies to the levying of rates for the purpose of promoting the convenience or saving the pockets of those who profess a particular style of religion or hold particular views as to church government."
He did not think those who had spoken against this Motion realised the strength of the establishment in Scotland. Compared with other religions communities in Scotland the Church of Scotland was, relatively speaking, wealthy, and knowing as he did the remarkable attachment of the members of that Church to their principles he could not think that that Church would be injured by doing what every other religion in Scotland did, namely, pay its own way.
Question put.
The House divided.—Ayes, 177; Noes, 39. (Division List No. 28.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barker, John

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Agnew, George William

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Black, Arthur W.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barnard, E. B.

Bowerman, C. W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Barnes, G. N.

Brace, William

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bramsdon, T. A.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Brigg, John

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Beale, W. P.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

O'Dowd, John

Bryce, J. Annan

Higham, John Sharp

O'Mara, James

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hodge, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hogan, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

Chance, Frederick William

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hudson, Walter

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cleland, J. W.

Jenkins, J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Clough, William

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Radford, G. H.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cremer, William Randal

Kearley, Hudson E.

Reddy, M.

Crosfield, A. H.

Kelley, George D.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Crossley, William J.

Kilbride, Denis

Rendall, Athelstan

Dalziel, James Henry

Laidlaw, Robert

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Delany, William

Lundon, W.

Robinson, S.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lupton, Arnold

Runciman, Walter

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Duffy, William J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seddon, J.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Mclean, Donald

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Elibank, Master of

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Erskine, David C.

M'Callum, John M.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Evans, Samuel T.

M'Kean, John

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Eve, Harry Trelawney

M'Killop, W.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim S.)

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Micking, Major G.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ferens, T. R.

Maddison, Frederick

Summerbell, T.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Ffrench, Peter

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomasson, Franklin

Findlay, Alexander

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

Flynn, James Christopher

Massie, J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Fuller, John Michael F.

Meagher, Michael

Walsh, Stephen

Fullerton, Hugh

Menzies, Walter

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Glendinning, R. G.

Mond, A.

Watt, H. Anderson

Glover, Thomas

Montgomery, H. G.

White, George (Norfolk)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Morrell, Philip

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Gulland, John W.

Morse, L. L.

Wilkie, Alexander

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Murphy, John

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Myer, Horatio

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Norman, Sir Henry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nuttall, Harry

Young, Samuel

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. M'Crae and Mr. Crombie.

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F

Dalrymple, Viscount

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Ashley, W. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

Starkey, John R.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Forster, Henry William

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Younger, George

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Heaton, John Henniker

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'ds)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Henry Craik and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hills, J. W.

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

Hunt, Rowland

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Nield, Herbert

Adjourned at five minutes after Eleven o'clock.