Commons Sitting of 25 March 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that he had received the following Communications expressing the condolence of the Portuguese Chamber of Deputies on the occasion of the destruction of the city of Kingston by an earthquake:—
"Portuguese Legation,
"March 23rd, 1907.
"Sir,
"I have the honour to enclose herewith a letter addressed to you by the President of the Chamber of Deputies of Portugal enclosing a copy of the expression of condolence unanimously passed by that House on the occasion of the destruction of the city of Kingston, and also a translation of both documents into the English language.
"I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration,
"Sir,
"Your most obedient
"humble Servant
"SOVERAL."
"The Right Hon.
James William Lowther, M.P.,
Speaker of the House of Commons, etc., etc., etc."
Translation.
"Camara dos Deputados. Illustrious and Excellent Sir.
"The Chamber of Deputies unanimously resolved in session of the 26th of this month, that in the respective act, to transmit their condolence on account of the seismic destruction of the city of Kingston and the almost total loss of the inhabitants. Conforming to my duty, I direct to your Excellency, in conformity of the determination of this Chamber, an authentic copy of the extract of the act which contains that determination. God guard your Excellency (signed) Alfredo Pereira. To the Illustrious and Excellent Presi-
1450
dent of the House of Commons of Great Britain and Ireland."
Translation.
"Authentic copy of the extracts of the session of the 26th of January, 1907, which contains the condolence transmitted to the British Nation on account of the destruction of the city of Kingston. The President permitted Snr. Pereira de Lima to discourse on an urgent matter. Snr. Pereira de Lima justified the following proposal, proposing that the Chamber should be asked to place in the act of the day our condolence directed to the British Nation for the seismic destruction of the city of Kingston, and principally for the almost total loss of the inhabitants, and this to be sent by telegram addressed to His Majesty King Edward VII. The expression of sincere sorrow manifested by the members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Portuguese Nation at the same time to be remitted to the President of the House of Commons of Great Britain, and also a copy of the part of the act referring to the co-participation of the national mourning. (signed) J. M. Pereira de Lima.
"The Minister of Public Works joins in the name of the Government in the proposal of Snr. Pereira de Lima.
"Snr. Arthur Montenegro in the name of the Progressive Party joins in the proposal of Snr. Pereira de Lima.
"Snr. Joao Pinto in the name of his political friends joins in the proposal presented to the Chamber.
"Snr. Aristides da Motta in the name of the reformed Liberal Party joins in the proposal of Snr. Pereira de Lima.
"Snr. Antonio Jose de Almeida joins in the name of the Republican deputies the same proposal.
"Snr. President in view of the manifestations of the Chamber declared the proposal of Snr. Pereira de Lima approved by acclamation.
"In conformity, Direction General of the Secretary of the Chamber of Deputies this 28th of January, 1907.
"The Councillor, Sub-Director.
"JOSE JOAQUIM MENDES LEAL."

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO 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 Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Royal Insurance Company Bill [Lords]; West Riding Tramways Bill [Lords]; Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [Lords]; West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords]; Newquay and District Water Bill [Lords]; Medway Lower Navigation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
  Basingstoke Gas Bill.—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  South Wales Mineral Railway Bill; Watford and Edgware Railway Bill.—Read a second time, and committed.
  Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, etc.) Bill and Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill.—Orders for Committal [20th and 28th February] read and discharged.
  Resolution of the House of the 18th day of March, relative to the Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, etc.) Bill and the Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill, which was ordered to be communicated to the Lords, and the Message from the Lords of the 19th day of March signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, read.
  Ordered, That the Metropolitan Water Board (Charges, etc.) Bill and the Metropolitan Water Board (Various Powers) Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, to be joined with a Committee of Five Lords.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Ordered, That all Petitions in favour of or against the Bills, respectively, presented on or before the 22nd day of April, 1907, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard against the Bills, or either of them, by themselves, their counsel, agents, or witnesses be heard, and counsel be heard in support of the Bills.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Mr. Burns.)
  Marriages Provisional Order Bill; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Dygwynbach, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL OPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour:—From Barr hill; and Govan; to lie upon the Table.
  TILONKO.
  Petition of Tolonko (a native chief of Natal), for inquiry into his case; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES' ARRANGEMENTS.
  Copy presented, of correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Railway Companies' Association with regard to certain arrangements entered into by railway companies with regard to rebates on traffic, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 18th March; Mr. Rees]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL GALLERY, ETC. (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Thirteenth. Annual Report to the Secretary for Scotland by the Commissioners and Trustees of the Board of Manufactures in Scotland, being for the year ending 30th September, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 20th March, 1907, declaring that Walter Henry Jeakins, Clerk, Post Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports (Annual Series) Nos. 3750 and 3751 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Local Taxation in Ireland for the year 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Post Amendment (No. 15) Warrant, 1907, dated 14th February, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Yorkshire Miners'Association—Funds and Payment of Income-tax.
  MR. WADSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Yorkshire Miners' Association have ever been charged income-tax on the interest paid to them by their bankers on deposits previous to the present year; why income-tax is demanded on their interest this year; and whether trade unions, registered under the Trade Union Acts, and whose funds are available for bene-
  1454
  volent benefits such as death claims, are properly liable for income-tax.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The exemption from income-tax granted to trade unions by the Trade Union (Provident Funds) Act, 1893, is confined to interest and dividends "applicable and applied solely for the purpose of provident benefits." The Yorkshire Miners' Association is accordingly chargeable on any part of its income which cannot be shown to be so applied. I understand that it is owing to an oversight that no assessment has hitherto been made upon the association.

  Advertisement for Telegraphists.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether advertisements have been issued by his authority in the public press asking for applications by competent telegraphists for the position of season assistants; whether women answering the advertisement have been informed that the wages are £1 per week, and that only six months work can be promised; and whether he will seek to avoid an increase of casual female labour, especially in view of the fact that a number of qualified telegraph learners are waiting appointment throughout the country.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton). The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the effect of the advertisement in question. The interests of the learners now waiting for appointment at various offices throughout the country are in no way affected by the temporary employment of certain officers who may respond to the advertisements. The object of the arrangement is simply to assist to relieve the pressure which unfortunately cannot be avoided in the summer months, it being partly due to the natural increase in the work at that season, and partly to the absence of a considerable portion of the staff on annual leave, which the Post Office endeavours to give them as far as possible during the summer months. This pressure cannot be altogether met by permanent additions to the staff without great waste of force and money during the rest

  1455
  of the year. It is met partly by overtime, and it is my desire as far as possible to reduce excessive overtime and consequent pressure on the staff. The employment of temporary assistants is one of several expedients designed with that object which have been under consideration.

  Belfast Publicans—Amount of Licence Duty.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR:To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the number of publicans in the city of Belfast and the amount of licence duty paid by them for the years ended 10th October, 1905, and 10th October, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on the 14th instant on the question of the sum collected.†The number of publicans could, no doubt, be easily ascertained, but I assume that this alone will not meet the object he has in view.

  Closing of Houses on the Estates of Lords Longford, De Vesci and Carysfort.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the report of the clerk to the Kingstown Urban District Council stating that, owing to the action of Lords Longford and De Vesci and the Earl of Carysfort, over 120 houses have been or will be closed and a number of workers and their families evicted; whether those evictions are the result of the refusal of the said Lords to comply with sanitary requirements; whether he is aware that those houses have been taken over by Lords Longford and De Vesci and the Earl of Carysfort at the termination of a lease term from the builders or owners; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of immediately adopting measures calculated to prevent the further depopulation and pauperisation of the Kingstown urban district.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have received the Report of the Kingstown Public Health
  †See (4) Debates, clxxi., 193.
  1456
  Committee, which contains statements to the effect set forth in the Question. The Board are not entitled to intervene in the matter, which is one to be dealt with by the urban district council so far as their powers enable them to do so. Under the Public Health Acts and Housing of the Working Classes Acts the urban district council have power to compel owners of insanitary houses to put them in a habitable condition, and, if they fail to do so, a further order may be obtained directing the houses to be closed and demolished. There is no power, however, to compel the owners to erect new houses to replace those so demolished. The urban district council can provide artisans' dwellings under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, and have already undertaken a large scheme for the purpose at considerable expense, having obtained special borrowing powers from Parliament. The Local Government Board understand that it is contended on behalf of the landlords referred to that the insanitary condition of the houses in question arose during the currency of long leases, when they, as head landlords, had no power to intervene, while the local sanitary authority had the power but declined to use it.

  Butter Bill—Date of Second Reading.
  MR. A. L. STANLEY: To ask the Prime Minister when the Second Reading of the Butter and Margarine Bill will be taken.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I quite hope that the Bill will be taken on an early day after the Easter recess.

  Equivalent Grants.
  MR. MORTON: To ask the Prime Minister what are the arrangements made with regard to the Equivalent Grant to England and Wales, Ireland, and Scotland; whether it has been the rule that the grant need not be spent on the same object; and whether the Equivalent Grant has been made on the principle of the amount of taxes paid by each part of the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) No fixed rules have been or could possibly be laid down in this matter; "equivalent grants"

  1457
  have in most cases been made applicable to purposes akin to those of the original grants, but there are notable exceptions. The basis on which such grants have been calculated has been the proportion of the assumed total contributions of each country to the Revenue.

  National Finances—Use of Surpluses.
  MR. BOWLES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, although Section 5 of the Appropriation Act, 1905, only empowered the Treasury to authorise the Board of Admiralty to defray expenditure not provided for out of surpluses effected by the saving of expenditure and not otherwise, and only empowered them to deal with appropriations in aid to the extent of sums not exceeding in all £1,688,687, the Treasury have, nevertheless, contrary to the Act, taken upon themselves to authorise the application to expenditure of £120,938 19s. 7d., which is not a saving of expenditure but an excess of receipts beyond the total sums appropriated in aid of naval expenditure by the Appropriation Act, 1905; whether a precisely similar course under precisely similar circumstances was taken by the Treasury in regard to a sum of £172,392 13s. 4d. on the Army Votes; why the Treasury thus took upon itself to exercise powers beyond those conferred upon it by law, and reported by the officer appointed to examine the public accounts on behalf of this House to be without statutory sanction; whether he will direct these two sums, amounting together to £293,331 12s. 11d., to be surrendered to the Exchequer; and whether he will undertake that in future the Treasury shall set an example to the other departments of strict obedience to the law.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I agree generally with the hon. Member in his interpretation of Section 5 of the Appropriation Act, 1905, and gave orders, as soon as the matter was brought to my personal notice, that an Amendment should be drafted so as to make it quite clear in future that the Treasury's temporary powers shall extend to making up any deficiency upon the receipts appropriated in aid of any Navy (or Army) Vote out of the surplus receipts on account
  1458
  of Appropriations in Aid on other Navy (or Army) Votes respectively. My decision has been communicated by the Treasury to the Public Accounts Committee, who are considering the Navy and Army Appropriation Accounts on which the Comptroller and Auditor General raised the question; and their approval will be sought forthwith to the draft Amendment of the Treasury, which has already been agreed to both by the Comptroller and Auditor General and by the authorities of the House. So far I have dealt with the steps to be taken for regularising the position for the future. As regards the current year, I may add that in the Treasury Minutes of the 22nd instant which were laid in dummy on the Table of the House on Friday, the temporary application of anticipated surpluses to meet anticipated deficits on Navy and Army Votes for 1906–7 has accordingly been dealt with exclusively on the basis of using surpluses effected by the saving of expenditure, without applying any extra receipts. I now proceed to deal with the second part of the Question, in which the hon. Member asks, with reference to the year 1905–6, that sums of £120,938 19s. 7d. in respect of the Navy and of £172,392 13s. 4d. in respect of the Army may be surrendered to the Exchequer. These sums represent the gross excess of actual over estimated receipts on certain Navy and Army Votes, respectively; and I will now indicate how, if they had been surrendered eo nomine to the Exchequer, the Exchequer and the Old Sinking Fund could not have received one penny more than the net surplus of £237,758 19s. 2d. on the Navy, or of £1,334,136 17s. 10d. on the Army, as shown on the face of the Appropriation Accounts for the respective services. As the hon. Member will see, this result flows from the fact that there was an unexhausted balance of authorised grants from the Exchequer out of which the deficiencies of receipts appropriated in aid of certain Navy and Army Votes could have been made good without making any use of the surpluses of receipts which have arisen on certain other Votes. All that would have happened would have been two payments of extra receipts into the Exchequer, and a precisely equal increase of the two payments out of the

  1459
  Exchequer under the head of Exchequer Grants. With this general explanation, I proceed to give the figures which will make the position clear in respect first of the Navy and then of the Army. As is shown in column 4 of page 5 of the Navy Account for 1905–6, the actual gross expenditure on Navy services as a whole amounted to £34,861,442 17s. 7d. As shown in column 5, the actual receipts amounted to a total of £1,709,601 16s. 9d., but this actual total included (column 2 on page 6) an excess of actual over estimated receipts on certain Votes amounting to £120,938 19s. 7d., so that on the strictest ruling the Executive was only able to use (out of a maximum of £l,688,687, shown in column 2 on page 4) Appropriations in Aid to meet gross expenditure up to a sum of £1,588,662 17s. 2d., leaving a balance of expenditure amounting to £33,272,780 0s. 5d., chargeable against Exchequer grants. But the Exchequer grants authorised by Parliament (column 3 on page 4) were £33,389,600, therefore the saving on Exchequer grants was £116,819 19s. 7d. Add to this the excess of actual receipts on certain Votes amounting as above to £120,938, 19s 7d., and the result is that the Exchequer could receive a total surrender of £237,758 19s. 2d., which is also the figure shown as the net surplus on page 5 of the Navy Account. As is shown in column 4 of page 5 of the Army Appropriation Account for 1905–6, the actual gross expenditure on Army Services as a whole amounted to £32,043,809 11s. 6d. As is shown in column 5, the actual receipts amounted to £3,564,946 9s. 4d., but this actual total included (column 2 of page 8) an excess of actual over estimated receipts on certain Votes amounting to £172,392 13s. 4d., so that, on the strictest ruling, the Executive was only able to use (out of a maximum of £3,557,725, shown in column 2 on page 4) Appropriations in Aid to meet gross expenditure up to a sum of £3,392,553 16s., leaving a balance of expenditure amounting to £28,651,255 15s. 6d. chargeable against Exchequer Grants. But the Exchequer Grants authorised by Parliament (column 3 of page 4) were £29,813,000, therefore the saving on Exchequer Grants was £1,161,744 4s. 6d. Add to this the excess of actual receipts on certain Votes,
  1460
  amounting as above to £172,392 13s. 4d., and the result is that the Exchequer could receive a total surrender of £1,334,136 17s. 10d., which is also the figure shown as net surplus on page 5 of the Army Account. This explanation will, I trust, satisfy the hon. Member that, apart from form, the action actually taken by the Treasury, in accordance with an unchallenged practice of many years' standing, amounts in substance to precisely the same thing, so far as the Exchequer is concerned, as payment of the excess Navy and Army receipts into the Exchequer, and the consequent issue of a correspondingly larger sum of the Exchequer under the head of authorised Exchequer Grants.

  Service of Summonses by Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE:To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in Edenderry, as in many other Irish towns, it was the custom for the local Royal Irish constables to serve all summonses given to them by the town clerk for that purpose under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act of 1854 and the Acts incorporated therewith; whether, in spite of a decision in the King's Bench to the effect that the service of such summonses by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary was illegal, the Dublin Castle authorities subsequently authorised the continuance of such service on representations made to them by the Chairman of the Commissioners, Mr M. P. O'Brien; that this authorisation by the Inspector General of Constabulary was confirmed in March, 1906, by an Order made by the magistrate of the Edenderry Petty Sessions Court and Town Court, and will he say why it was withdrawn last January; and whether steps will be taken to prevent the resources of the township being taxed for the employment of a special summons server when the Town and Sessions Courts are held at the same time, and the local police are quite willing to continue the duty they performed for so long a period.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In January, 1906, the King's Bench Division quashed the conviction in a particular case on the

  1461
  ground that service of the summons by the police was not legal in that case. By a further decision of the King's Bench Division in November 1906, it was held that the police are debarred from serving summonses in any prosecutions taken by town commissioners under the Towns Improvement Act. Having regard to this authoritative interpretation of the statute the police cannot be authorised to serve such summonses.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Robert Cooke.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Robert Cooke, son of the late David Cooke, who was evicted from his farm on the estate of Sir Samuel Hayes, near Convoy, county Donegal, over twenty years ago, and to the fact that his son, Robert Cooke, has been reinstated by the Commissioners two years ago, but without means to start farming with; and whether he will direct the Estates Commissioners to grant him a sum of money to crop and stock his farm now lying waste.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that Robert Cooke has signed an agreement for the purchase of a parcel of land comprising nineteen acres on the estate referred to, but the advance in the case has not yet been sanctioned. The Commissioners are prepared to consider any application which he may make for an advance or grant with which to stock his farm.

  Apportionment of the Mountshannon Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Mountshannon estate, in county Limerick, has been as yet apportioned to any persons; and can he say whether the names of Hanora Lonergan, of Toomaline Doon, James Conway, of Guravalla Doon, Ellen Rafferty, of Knockroe Kilteely, and Simon Ryan, of Cross Pallasgrean, whose evicted farms have been grabbed, and who applied as far back as two years
  1462
  since for portions of this estate, have been favourably considered.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners will not take possession of this estate until May next. In the meantime the scheme for the distribution of farms cannot be settled.

  Sale of Sir C. Barrington's Estates.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Sir Charles Barrington, baronet, of Glenstal, county Limerick, a few years since sold some of his property to his tenants, and is now again in negotiation with the tenants on another portion of his estates; and will he instruct the Estates Commissioners to approach him on the sale to them of the lands of Culnahilla, so as to plant thereon his evicted tenants, Messrs. Ryan, Kelt, M'Knight, and others holding uneconomic farms on the estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that, so far, proceedings for the sale of the particular estate referred to in the Question have not been instituted before them. If the Commissioners should acquire this part of the property they will pay due regard to the applications of evicted tenants who come within the provisions of the Act as well as to the claims of the occupiers of uneconomic holdings in the neighbourhood.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Patrick O'Brien.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Dicken property of Basket Hill and Croughhiveera, Ballybrood, county Limerick, have arranged with their landlord for the purchase of their farms; and will the Estates Commissioners be instructed to approach the agent, Mr. Whyte, of Limerick, with the view of obtaining the evicted land of his father for Patrick O'Brien, Cloughadareen, Pallasgrean, county Limerick, which, from the time of his eviction, has always been worked as an untenanted farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received applications from three evicted tenants for reinstatement on the estate referred to. In one case the evicted tenant has been restored, and in the other two (including the case of Patrick O'Brien) the applications have been rejected by reason of the fact that the evictions took place more than twenty-five years before the passing of the Act of 1903.

  Irish School Teachers as Income Tax Collectors.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that Irish national teachers are permitted to carry on business as postmasters, shopkeepers, farmers, insurance agents, etc., if he will state why an exception has been made in the case of the teacher of school 5735, and why he has been prevented from acting as income tax collector in his district, which would not interfere with his duties as teacher; and whether, seeing that this teacher was deprived of £30 a year salary owing to the operation of the Rules of 1900, he will recommend the Board to withdraw their objection to his supplementing his income by evening work which will not interfere with his ordinary daily duties as teacher.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Under the Commissioners' rules, Irish national teachers are not permitted to engage in any occupation that would impair their usefulness as teachers; and the Commissioners, after careful consideration of the duties of a collector of income tax, decided that the holding of such a position by a teacher would impair his efficiency. The due discharge of the duties of a collector of income tax would be liable to bring him into conflict with, and might even require him to prosecute, parents of school children, with whom, as a condition of his usefulness as school teacher, he is expected to avoid occasions of discord.

  Irish Labourers Cottages.
  MR. HOGAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether labourers residing in urban districts in Ireland are debarred from the privileges
  1464
  of the Labourers Acts although working in the adjoining rural districts where there is no housing accommodation available.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A labourer who is usually employed in a rural district, but who, owing to want of accommodation in that district, is obliged to reside in an urban district, may be provided under the Labourers Acts with a cottage in the portion of the rural district in which he works.

  Inspection of Estates in County Wexford.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the county of Wexford the inspectors of the Land Commission are only now inspecting estates where agreements were lodged in 1905, with the result that a number of the tenants have to pay from 3½ to 4 per cent per annum on the amount of the purchase money instead of 3¼; and whether he will take steps to have sales in the county Wexford completed as soon as possible.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The fact is as stated in in the first part of the Question. Under the Lord-Lieutenant's regulations purchase agreements are dealt with by the Estates Commissioners in order of priority of lodgment, and the Commissioners use every effort to dispose of the cases as rapidly as possible.

  Pay of Labourers on Donaghadee Harbour.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the Board of Works is only paying the labourers engaged on Donaghadee Harbour works 2s. 4d. per diem, while the standard wage for labourers is considerably higher.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that unskilled labourers taken on temporarily by the Board of Works at Donaghadee Harbour are paid the same wages as are given by the urban district of Donaghadee for a similar class of work. As regards the men permanently employed I have no evidence to show that they are receiving less than the

  1465
  standard rate of wage, but each case is being inquired into.

  Removal of Bones of King Henry II., King John, and King Richard Cœur de Lion from France.
  MR. HERBERT:To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now say whether he will approach the French Government with a view to obtaining their assent to the removal to this country from the Abbey of Fontevrault of the bones and effigies of the Plantagenet Sovereigns, viz., Henry II. and his consort, Eleanor of Guienne, Isabel of Angoulème, consort of King John, and Richard Cœur de Lion.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) His Majesty's Government do not think that it would be desirable to make this request, as the French Government could hardly be expected to entertain it.

  Assistance of British Consuls to British Traders Abroad—Counterfeit Trade Marks.
  MR. TILLETT: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the officials at British Embassies in Continental countries are directed to give practical assistance to English traders whose trade marks or trade names have been counterfeited; and whether, in the event of English traders having to take either criminal or civil proceedings against counterfeiters in Continental countries, they can rely on receiving all possible assistance from the Embassies.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) It is the duty of His Majesty's representatives abroad to render such assistance to all British traders as is proper and desirable in each individual case as it arises. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am not quite clear as to what sort of assistance is meant. It is obvious that His Majesty's representatives cannot interfere in legal proceedings pending before foreign courts unless it has appeared that a denial of justice has taken place; and that they cannot take the place of legal advisers.

  Increase of Turkish Customs Duties.
  MR. GOOCH: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can announce, in full, the conditions finally attached to the increase of the Turkish customs duties.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The conditions will be comprised in a Blue-book on the subject, which I hope to lay before Parliament on the conclusion of the negotiations. In the meantime I am unable to make any statement on the subject.

  Pauperism.
  MR. HADDOCK: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of paupers, of all kinds, receiving relief at the end of the financial year 1835.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The numbers of persons receiving relief in England and Wales at the end of the financial year 1835, or indeed at any period during that year, cannot be stated, as no Returns of a comprehensive kind were then made. Complete Returns were not obtained until many years later.

  The Franchise—Procedure in Foreign Countries.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet been able to procure information, of a recent date, showing at what age the right to vote in legislative elections begins in the different countries of the world possessing parliamentary government.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Directions have been given to His Majesty's representatives abroad to obtain this information, but it will necessarily be some time before the particulars can be collected.

  Holyhead as Port of Arrival for American Mails.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the figures lately submitted to him by the Cork Harbour Commissioners

  1467
  in a statement dated 27th January, 1907, as to the arrivals of American mails in English towns on 9th January, 1907, were based on the supposition that the s. s. "Oceanic" had proceeded direct to Holyhead and landed the mails there; and whether he will take into consideration the advantages which would accrue to the country generally if Holyhead were submitted for Queenstown or Plymouth as the port of call for all homeward mails.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension. The Statement prepared by the Cork Harbour Commissioners, which is dated the 28th January, 1907, was based on the supposition that the mails brought by the s. s. "Oceanic" on the occasion in question were landed at Queenstown, as in fact they were. I have no power to dictate the port of landing of mails, such as the inward American mails, not carried under contact with the Post Office.

  Suggested Telephone Extension from Fermoy to Waterford.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, as the telephone trunk line has been constructed to Fermoy, he will consider the desirability of extending it from there through Lismore, Cappoquin, and Dungarvan to Waterford, in view of the commercial interests to be served, particularly of Dungarvan.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) An extension of the telephone system to Fermoy has not yet been authorised, but I hope to carry out the work if a guarantee can be obtained. As a new route from the south-west of Ireland to Waterford, through Mallow and Tipperary, has just been completed, there does not seem to be an immediate demand for another outlet from Waterford. I recently offered to extend the trunk service to Youghal, under guarantee, and if this scheme is carried out it may be more convenient to serve Dungarvan from Youghal than from Fermoy. A further guarantee would be necessary for this line. Until schemes for Youghal and Fermoy have been settled I cannot make proposals for serving the other places referred to in the Question.

  County Councils and Small Holdings.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, seeing that a circular has been addressed by that Department to county councils in Great Britain, calling attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee on small holdings, and inviting the attention of such county councils to the suggestions and recommendations made by the Committee to which effect might be given under the law as it stands, and that the Department has also invited replies to that circular letter, he will at the earliest possible moment publish such replies for the benefit of Members of this House.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We shall be glad to supply the House with full information on this subject. Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to consider the precise form in which it should be given.

  Erection of Light at Clanchland Point.
  MR. LAMONT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Commissioners of Northern Lights have included in their estimates for the current year the cost of erecting a lighted buoy or beacon on Clanchland Point, in the Island of Arran.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Commissioners of Northern Lights included in their estimates for 1907–8 an item for the cost of establishing a lighted buoy off the southern extremity of Hamilton Spit, but, in view of the numerous other new works of a more pressing nature, the Board of Trade are not prepared to sanction this particular proposal this year.

  Wrecks of Aberdeen Trawlers—Board of Trade Inquiries.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the number of recent cases of loss and stranding of the following steam trawlers sailing out of the port of Aberdeen, without any inquiry having been held by the Board of Trade, viz., the "Star of Hope," stranded at Newburgh and two lives lost; the

  1469
  "Badger," stranded and lost on the West Coast of the Orkneys in May 1906, and one life lost; the "Undaunted," stranded in January; the "Star of the Isles," also in January 1907, wrecked on the Scaurs of Cruden; on Friday last the "Irish Prince," wrecked and sunk at the Isle of Copinshay (Orkneys); and if he can state whether, in the latter case, an inquiry will be held, and why, in the other cases, no inquiry of any kind has been held in Aberdeen.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the strandings of steam trawlers referred to in the Question. Preliminary inquiry was held in each case by the Principal Officer of Customs, and the evidence taken has been carefully considered, but, having regard to the fact that Scottish fishing vessels have not hitherto been required to carry certificated skippers, the Board have not thought it necessary to order formal investigations. In the case of the "Star of Hope" I have to refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by the President of the Board of Trade, on the 12th June last,†to a Question put by the hon. Member for Kincardineshire. In the case of the "Badger" the mate, who was in charge, was drowned. In the case of the "Star of the Isles" the papers were referred to the Scottish Office, and I am informed that Thomas Scott and James Muir have been ordered to be tried by the sheriff and jury at Aberdeen. The evidence in the case of the "Irish Prince" shows that the stranding was owing to the accidental fouling of her propeller by the trawl net, and the Board of Trade are of opinion that no useful purpose would be served by holding a formal investigation.

  Rebuilding of Regent Street Quadrant.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to rebuild the whole of the Quadrant, as leases fall in, upon the same design as that of the building now being erected; and, if so, whether he can undertake that further consideration shall be given to the views of lessees and others before further building becomes necessary.
  †See (4) Debates, clviii., 820.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The designs are intended to provide for the rebuilding of the whole of the Quadrant as one consistent scheme. As I have already informed the hon. Member by letter, the plans were most carefully considered both by the late and by the present Government before they were agreed to; and it would be too late now, when a part of the scheme has almost been carried out, to make any alteration in them, even if any such could be shown to be desirable.

  Closing of the British Museum Reading Boom.
  MR. PAUL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the attention of the Treasury has been drawn to the announcement that the reading room of the British Museum will be closed from the middle of April till the end of October; whether he is aware that this step will inflict loss and inconvenience upon a very large number of poor students; and whether the authorities of the museum can make temporary provision for them in the King's Library or elsewhere.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I understand that since the reading room was opened to the public in 1867 it has undergone no kind of general repair or restoration. Arrangements for closing it for repairs have accordingly been made by the Trustees, who inform me that they are making temporary provision in the rooms of the library for accommodating readers engaged in special work. About 200 seats will be provided; and it is believed that with this accommodation the more pressing needs of students can be met. Every effort, will be made by the authorities to satisfy all genuine applications. Moreover, the Guildhall Library, which is one of the most extensive libraries in the Kindgom, is open to the public and will no doubt be largely used; and there are now free libraries in many parts of London where ordinary books of reference can be consulted.

  Grievances of Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury

  1471
  if arrangements have been made for the appointment of a Departmental Committee to inquire into the alleged grievances of the clerks to surveyors of taxes; and, if so, can he give any information as to the composition and personnel of that Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) As I stated in a written reply to a Question by the hon. Member for East Leeds last Tuesday, the matter is engaging the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but there is not, at the present time, any intention of appointing a Committee.

  Assessment of Cottage Property.
  MR. REES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that owners of small cottage properties, who are assessed to income-tax upon the nominal rental of their cottages, or some figure approximating to such rental, are compelled to pay income-tax at that rate, notwithstanding the fact that their actual receipts, though their cottages are occupied, may after payment of local rates and repairs fall very far short of the amount upon which assessment is made; and whether in view of the need for encouraging small holders, he will consider whether the tax cannot be levied in proportion to the rent actually received in any given year.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Property of the kind referred to is by Law chargeable to income-tax on its annual value, less the statutory deductions for repairs and other outgoings allowed by Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1894. The Computation of annual value is naturally based upon the gross rental of the property, but deductions are allowed for any rates or other tenants' burdens which are payable by the owner, and further allowances may be claimed in respect of any periods for which the property is unoccupied or the rent is irrecoverable.

  Suggested Discontinuance of Annual Licence Fee of Irish Solicitors.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say whether he has received a memorial from the Incor-
  1472
  porated Law Society of Ireland asking that the annual licence fee charged for Irish solicitors be discontinued; and will he give the matter his consideration and remove this tax peculiar to this profession.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have received and considered the memorial referred to. I am not in a position to accede to its prayer.

  Reduction of Strength of Moplah Rifles.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the two battalions of Moplah Rifles have each been reduced to 200 non-commissioned officers and men by stopping recruitment, though a recruiting officer is maintained in Malabar, and by offering discharges to men who had not served their proper time; whether the Governments of Madras and India did not decide against the proposed disbandment of these battalions and, seeing that if the answer is in the affirmative, the action of the military authorities practically amounts to overriding the decision of the Government, whether he will make inquiry into the matter on account of the political objections to introducing discontent among the Moplahs, as well as on account of the merits of the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have not the information required for a reply to this Question, but I will refer it to the Government of India

  Boycott of British Goods in India.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the boycott organised by the anti-partitionists in Bengal has resulted in a falling off of 70,000,000 of yards of cotton piece goods in the exports from Manchester, while in other Indian Provinces there has been an excess of 31,000,000 of yards in the figures for last year; and whether, since Bengal takes more than half of all the Manchester piece goods imported into India, he will publish such figures as may be available for the information of those interested in the trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The trade Returns of the United Kingdom

  1473
  give the exports of cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom to the mari-

  Millions of Yards.

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  Bengal

  1,216

  1,280

  1,209

  Other Provinces

  1,040

  1,113

  1,142

  I am unable to say whether the decrease in the export to Bengal in 1906, as compared with the figures of 1906, was due to the cause mentioned by the hon. Member. The export to Bengal in 1905 was abnormally large. The average export to Bengal for the five years ending 1905 was 1,190 million yards. The trade Returns published by the Board of Trade and by the Government of India give full particulars regarding the cotton piece goods trade of this country with India.

  Quinquennial Valuation of Indian Civil Service Family Pension Fund.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the quinquennial valuation of the Indian Civil Service Family Pension Fund is, as in the case of the Military Fund, long overdue; when will it be completed; whether, at the last valuation, after allowing interest at the rate of 4½ per cent. per annum on the funds, it was found necessary to enhance the rate of contribution of the subscribers by 27½ per cent., in order to maintain the solvency of the fund; whether this was due to the cost of management, which showed a charge of £3 by the Government for every £7 paid to widows and orphans; whether Mr. Day, the actuary who was consulted, suggested that the Government should manage the fund free of expense; and, if so, will he say why his suggestion was not adopted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The last published valuation showing the assets and liabilities arising under Indian Civil Service Family Pension Regulations as on 30th September, 1898, was published; in the Gazette of India on the 30th August,
  1474
  time Provinces of India, in each of the last three years, as follows—
  1902. A new valuation as on 31st March, 1905, is now being made, and will probably be completed about the end of July. The rates of subscription were reduced, as a temporary measure, in 1896 by 27½ per cent., but in 1902 it was found necessary to revert to the full rates in order to maintain an equilibrium between prospective subscriptions and benefits. For the purposes of valuation the expenses of management are assumed to be 2½ per cent. on the receipts and 1 per cent. on the payments. In reporting on the valuation as on the 30th September 1898, Mr. Stanley Day stated that, if a lower rate of interest than 4½ per cent. were adopted for the purposes of the valuation, Government might undertake to manage the fund free of expense, but as the valuation was based on the rate of 4½ per cent., no change was made in this respect.

  The late Major Mill, Bengal Artillery—Suggested Continuance of Compassionate Allowance to Daughter.
  SIR EDWIN CORNWALL: To ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the case of Miss Alice Eleanor; Mill, who after the death of her father Major Mill, of the Bengal Artillery, in the Indian Mutiny at Fyzabad in 1857, was compelled to wander in the jungle with her mother and two young brothers, one of whom died from the exposure, without shelter for a long time; whether he is aware that the compassionate allowance granted to Mrs. Mill, in addition to a pension, was not continued to Miss Mill after the death of her mother in 1903, and that Miss Mill, whose mother and brother are now dead, receives a pension of only £40 a year; and whether he will make inquiries as to the advisability of

  1475
  continuing the compassionate allowance previously granted to her mother to Miss Mill, in view of the services of her father and the hardships and dangers incurred by Miss Mill after the death of her father.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Motley.) Mrs. Mill was granted the pension admissible under the regulations to the widow of an officer killed in action. On her death in 1903 her daughter applied for a continuation of this pension; but, apart from the fact that the continuation of a widow's pension to her daughter would be altogether contrary to rule, the Secretary of State in Council decided that, in view of the amount of Miss Mills' income, the case was not one for the grant of a special compassionate allowance.

  Sale of the O'Dwyer Estate.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain, in connection with the sale of the O'Dwyer estate in the Land Judge's Court, the annual and capital value respectively of that estate, with the name of the valuer, the price which the Land Judge has sanctioned, the normal fee and the expenses ordered to be paid to Mr. Bell, I receiver for negotiating the sale, and the extra amount ordered to be paid to Mr. Bell for his action which resulted in increasing the price; whether the total is higher or lower than the average negotiating fee paid by the Estates Commissioners; and whether the Estates Commissioners will, before these payments are completed, have an opportunity of getting the estate valued and of controlling the payments.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that the annual rental of this estate was £643, and the price at which the Land Judge sold was £11,453. This price is taken to be synonymous with the capital value. No extra amount was ordered to be paid to Mr. Bell for any action of his which may have resulted in an increase of price. His remuneration was fixed upon the principles set out in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 27th February.†The sale in this matter
  †See (4) Debates., clxx., 51.
  1476
  was carried out under the provision of the Land Act of 1896, and the Estates Commissioners therefore had no concern with it.

  Irish Evicted Tenants.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, having regard to the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo, in the House on the 21st February 1900, that the total number of evicted tenants in Ireland at the outside numbered then between 2,000 and 3.000 persons, the number has risen seven years later to 7,155; and if he has any official information showing that a number of those claiming are disentitled to relief.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have given already particulars to the House showing that the Estates Commissioners have held that some of the applicants are ineligible for reinstatement. As soon as the Commissioners' inquiries into the applications have been completed they propose to report generally as to the result.

  Sale of Irish Estates—Buying out Existing Tenants.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, when on the sale of an entire estate the owner and the tenant of a non-residential farm on it concur in the desire to sell their respective interests in that farm for the purpose of allowing it to be distributed among descendants of tenants evicted from it previous to 1878, if the Estates Commissioners have power to give effect to that purpose by buying up the entire estate, including the two interests in that farm, will he ask them to do it in the case of the Kavanagh Estate, Streete, Westmeath; and, if they lack power, will he endeavour to have it conferred upon them this session.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that, in the case of proceedings for the sale of an estate, they can in exceptional cases apply, out of the reserve fund, moneys for the purchase of an existing tenant's interest in order to effect the restoration of an evicted tenant who comes within the provisions of the Act; but they have no power to make an advance from the

  1477
  Land Purchase Fund for the purchase of a tenant's interest. If, however, the tenant surrenders his interest to the landlord as the result of a direct agreement between themselves, the Commissioners are in a position to purchase the farm as untenanted land. The descendants of persons evicted prior to 1878 are as such ineligible to receive parcels of land under the Act of 1903. The Commissioners cannot trace the Kavanagh Estate as being the subject of proceedings before them.

  Purchase of the Gregg Estate, Westmeath.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when, in a district in which land is much needed for the relief of uneconomic holdings and the prevention of emigration, a purchaser under previous purchase Acts offers untenanted land subject only to a balance of annuities payable to the Irish Land Commission, and when the only requirement is an accountant's adjustment of a single transaction between the two purchase departments of the Land Commission, will he, in the public interest, ask those departments to make the necessary adjustment and allow the transaction to go through; and will he have this done in the case of the Gregg Estate at Culvin, Streete, Westmeath.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It has been judicially decided that, having regard to the provisions of Section 9 (4) of the Purchase Act of 1891, an advance cannot be made under the Land Purchase Acts for the purchase of any holding which is already charged with an annuity in respect of an advance under the Acts.

  Sale of Miss M'Cormack's Estate in Westmeath and Longford.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, does the practice set forth by the Estates Commissioners on page 9 of their last annual Report apply; if not, what is their practice when, in a district in which descendants of evicted tenants are in need of land and willing to buy it at its true value, the owner of the evicted and untenanted land attempts to get paid twice for it and to defeat the in-
  1478
  tention of Parliament by first selling a new tenant's interest to the highest bidder subject to the condition of signing a judicial agreement in order that the fee simple may then be sold to him within the zones, and that thus inspection and the jurisdiction of the Commissioners may be ousted; and, if the Commissioners have discretionary power to prevent such an abuse, will they note that Miss M'Cormack now advertises her intention to practice it with reference to her lands on the borders of Westmeath and Longford.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that their practice remains as described on page 9 of their last annual Report. The Commissioners have no information in regard to Miss M'Cormack's property, but have made a note of the fact alleged in the Question.

  Sale of Sir Henry Burke's Estate, County Roscommon.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Sir Henry Burke has offered to sell to the Estates Commissioners untenanted lands in his possession at Drum, near Athlone, county Roscommon, for the purpose of enlarging the small holdings upon his estate; and, if so, whether negotiations are in progress on the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that Sir Henry Burke has recently instituted proceedings for the sale to them of untenanted lands in county Roscommon, including land in the parish of Drum. The case will be dealt with in order of priority.

  Sale of Grass Farms at Athlone.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many grass farms in the rural district of Athlone, county Roscommon, have been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners; who are the owners of these farms; whether the farms have been inspected; if so, the offers made to the owners; have they been accepted; and what is the price offered per statute acre.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are not in a position to give the information asked for, seeing that their records are not kept by rural districts but by counties. The Commissioners have agreed to purchase certain untenanted lands in county Roscommon, and negotiations for other purchases are proceeding. Until further progress has been made the Commissioners do not think it desirable to furnish piecemeal information as regards particular counties.

  Exports of Irish Timber.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture has drawn his attention to the increased quantity of timber exported from Ireland during the last four years as compared with previous years, and the practice of landlords to strip of trees estates they are about to sell; has the Government any powers to stop or check the destruction of trees or to require fresh plantation; and, if not, will he ask Parliament for such powers this session.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The new Returns of Exports and Imports issued by the Department of Agriculture do not furnish approximately complete figures for any year earlier than 1904. 115,000 tons of timber were exported from Ireland in each of the years 1904 and 1905. The figures for 1906 are not yet available. The Estates Commissioners have no power to interfere with the cutting of timber on estates about to be sold. They are aware that allegations have been made that some landlords have cut down timber in anticipation of sales. The Commissioners are also aware that tenant purchasers have disposed of their timber to a considerable extent. They have endeavoured to prevent the practice, as diminishing the security for the advance, but their existing powers do not appear to be effective. The question whether further powers should be provided is one of much difficulty, but the matter will be considered in the event of the introduction of legislation for amending the Land Acts.

  Purchase of Land of Mr. R. Gradwell of Dowth Hall, Drogheda.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the dates upon which the Estates Commissioners have written asking Mr. Richard Gradwell, of Dowth Hall, Drogheda, to sell to them his evicted and untenanted lands in Westmeath; the date of Mr. Gradwell's reply, if any; and have the Commissioners any prospect of acquiring those lands or any portion of them.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners communicated with Mr. Gradwell on 24th July last and again on 30thJanuary, inquiring whether he would be prepared to sell his untenanted land. The Commissioners have not yet received any reply.

  Enlargement and Improvement of Irish Non-Vested Schools.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there are any grants available for the enlargement or structural improvement of non-vested schools in Ireland; and, if so, on what conditions are such grants given.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) There are no funds available for grants towards the enlargement or structural improvement of non-vested national school-houses, such aid being given to vested national schools only. A non-vested national school may, however, be vested in trustees on the application of the local parties interested in the school and with the consent of the Commissioners, and, when so vested, may participate in the grants available for vested national schools. Before approving of the vesting of a non-vested national school, the Commissioners require to be satisfied (1) that the educational requirements of the district make it desirable that the school should be recognised as a vested national school; and (2) that the house and premises are suitable, and that a plot of adequate area can be given for a playground.

  Delay in Sale of Rowe's Estate.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the matter of Rowe's Estate, where negotiations for a sale have been proceeding for the last three years between the tenants and the Land Judge's Court, and where inspection by the Land Commission was made over twelve months ago, nothing has since been done by either the Land Commission or the Land Judge's Court to complete the sale to the tenants; and whether he will bring this case before the attention of the Land Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that the necessary documents under Section 7 of the Act of 1903 were lodged with the Estates Commissioners on 1st May last. The Commissioners have since had the estate inspected, and hope to be in a position shortly to make an offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of the property.

  The Great Southern and Western Railway Company and Abbeyfeale Town Tenants' Association.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted at a meeting of the Town Tenants' Association of Abbeyfeale protesting against the destruction of the trade and general interests of the town by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company through the insufficiency of loading and unloading accommodation at the railway premises there, and the want of a proper staff of men; and if he can say what action he intends to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have no record of the receipt of the resolution referred to. I am not sure that the complaint indicated in the Question is one with which any Department of the Irish Government has power to deal. If, however, full particulars of the matter complained of should be furnished to the Department of Agriculture, they will consider whether any action may be possible.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Royal Marine Artillery Sergeants' Mess.
  MR. MOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a case before the Portsmouth brewster sessions, of a pensioned warrant officer having beer delivered at his house by the canteen of the Royal Marine Artillery sergeants' mess; whether such sale was not contrary to the regulations; and whether he will take steps to protect traders in garrison towns against this form of competition.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Edmund Robertson,): My attention has been called to this case, and steps have now been taken to prevent the recurrence of a similar practice in future.

  Ineffective Warships.
  MR. MURRAY MACDONALD:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the aggregate tonnage of all the vessels struck off the list of effective ships of each of the Navies of Great Britain, France, Germany, and the United States respectively since the beginning of the year 1904.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The aggregate tonnage of vessels struck off the list of effective ships since 1st January, 1904, is as follows:—Great Britain, 279,635; France, 76,553; Germany, 47,219; United States, 11,159.

  Naval Gun Reserve.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a fixed reserve of heavy guns in the proportion of one to every four mounted has hitherto been regarded as essential by the Admiralty; if so, whether any change has recently been made, or is in contemplation, by which the proportion of guns in reserve to guns in use has been or will be diminished; and whether, in view of the frequent assurances that have been given to the House to the effect that the reserve of warlike stores would be maintained at a fixed proportion, any intended departure from that undertaking will be announced to the House.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No reduction in the reserve of heavy guns or other warlike stores has been made, or is in contemplation.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is there any reduction in the reserve of ammunition per gun?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, I took the Question in that sense.
  MR.SAMUEL ROBERTS: Is it not the fact that our reserve is much less in proportion than that of either Germany or France?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Expenditure on Dover Harbour.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what has been the total expenditure on Dover Harbour since the works were proposed in 1895, how much further expenditure is proposed, and whether any adverse Reports have been received in reference to the harbour.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The expenditure up to the present is about £3,059,000 out of a total estimate of £3,500,000. It is expected that the balance of the total Estimate will all be expended. No adverse Reports have been received.

  Dover Harbour Moorings.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether mishaps occurred to both H.M.S. "Africa" and H.M.S. "Duke of Edinburgh" when testing moorings at Dover; whether the grounding of H.M.S. "Duke of Edinburgh" was due to the dangerous currents in the harbour; and what action the Board of Admiralty propose to take for the safety of ships using the harbour.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No mishap occurred to the "Africa." The "Duke of Edinburgh," when entering, was placed in difficulties by a vessel crossing her bows, and promptly let go an anchor to avoid mishap. Owing to the bad holding ground the anchor did not bite, and the "Duke of Edinburgh" drifted somewhat to the northward and smelt the ground. To avoid such occur-
  1484
  rences in future, a system of signals will be instituted to prevent vessels entering and leaving the harbour together.

  Defective Naval Ammunition.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Horsham Division of Sussex, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty does the addition of mercuric chloride to cordite, or other explosives, prevent a proper estimation by the recognised service tests of the purity and condition as regards safety of such cordite or other explosives; has any cordite supplied to the British Government by any firm of contractors been found to contain mercuric chloride, and is this substance authorised in cordite; whether in view of the loss of life and damage which would occur were the cordite on our ships of war to suffer spontaneous combustion in consequence of impure materials having been used, and in consequence of mercuric chloride in the cordite having misled inspectors as regards the tests, it is proposed to, or have orders been given to, specially examine all cordite supplied to His Majesty's service, with a view to such cordite being immediately destroyed if found to contain mercuric chloride; whether it is proposed to strike any firms, who may have supplied such defective ammunition, off the list of Government contractors, and to make them responsible for the loss caused to the public.
  MR.EDMUND ROBERTSON: This question is under active investigation at present, and no statement on the subject can yet be made.

  H.M.S. "Dreadnought"—Cost of Armaments.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the total estimated cost of the guns of the "Dreadnought" is set down in the Navy Estimates as £113,200 and her armament as ton 12-inch guns, besides a number of small guns and torpedoes; whether he is aware that a 12-inch Mark-X gun cannot be obtained for a less sum than £9,800, so that only eleven 12-inch guns can be provided by the sum mentioned, giving a reserve of only one in ten as compared with one in four, as formerly existed; and whether

  1485
  he can state what steps the Admiralty propose to take to provide an adequate reserve.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The sum of £113,200 includes the cost of the armament on board the ship only. The reserve has been separately provided for and is adequate.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is it not usual to include the reserve armament in the cost?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON'Sreply was inaudible.

  Strength of the Infantry Reserve.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present strength of the First Class Army Reserve of the Infantry of the Line, and of Section D, Reserve of the Infantry of the Line.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): The figures on 1st March were as follows:—Sections A. and B., 62,163; Section D., 11,990; Total, 74,153.

  Uniform Allowances for the Territorial Army.
  MR.ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the event of the Yeomanry and the Militia being incorporated in the proposed Territorial Army, any issue of clothing will be made to the men; whether the present scales of clothing for the Militia and Yeomanry respectively will be maintained; and, if not, what scale will be substituted.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYhad given notice of the following Question: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to make any grant to the men of the Territorial Army towards the purchase of uniforms for review and walking-out purposes; if so, what is the estimated amount of such grant; and, if no such grant is to be made, will territorial units be required to provide such uniforms from private funds, or will the wearing of such uniforms be discontinued.
  MR. HALDANE: In reply to this Question and to one put on a similar
  1486
  subject by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire, the clothing of the territorial force in peace time will be dealt with by the county associations, which bodies will receive for this purpose a sum of money based on an average allowance per man on the strength, plus such additional sum as may be required to meet first outlay on increase of numbers. The grant, which will be based on the assumption that service dress is to be worn by the whole territorial force, will be rather higher in the case of mounted than of dismounted men. The question as to whether any extra grant is to be made towards the purchase of uniforms for review and walking-out purposes is still under consideration.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he considered this to be a very important question. At the present time the Militia and the Yeomanry had a large amount of their clothing, other than service dress, paid for out of public funds. Would the Militia continue to have their underclothing paid for, and would the Yeomanry and the Volunteers still have their walking-out dress, apart from their service dress, paid for out of public funds?
  MR. HALDANE: It is clear that the public must provide these people with the dress and clothing necessary to enable them to perform their duties. The working out of the details of that principle is still under consideration.
  MR.ARNOLD-FORSTERasked whether the Militia would continue to receive the whole of their clothing, or whether they would receive merely the ordinary service dress.
  MR. HALDANE: The new conditions will apply to the whole of the territorial force. Any peculiarity will have to be considered. Our obligation is to provide the new territorial force with all the clothing that is necessary to enable them to perform their duties. We shall consider the details as we come to them.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked whether there would be absolute uniformity of dress in regard to all the regiments of the territorial force. He understood that one regiment would not

  1487
  be allowed to have walking-out dress if it was denied to another.
  MR. HALDANE: We are aiming at uniformity. The principle is to organise the second Line as regards clothing and everything else on a uniform principle, just as in the case of the first Line.
  MR. MYER: Will there also be uniformity of colour?
  MR. HALDANE: That point too is under consideration.

  Lord Esher.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Esher occupies any official position at the War Office, or has any authority there; and, if so, what is his position and whence is his authority derived.
  MR. HALDANE: Lord Esher occupies no official position at the War Office nor does he exercise any authority there. The misapprehension into which the hon. Member has fallen is probably founded on the fact that Lord Esher is a member of the Defence Committee, but this is a body quite distinct from the War Office.
  MR. BOWLES: Is it suggested that Lord Esher, in his capacity as a member of the Defence Committee, has a right of access to confidential War Office and Admiralty documents?
  MR. HALDANE: As a member of the Defence Committee no doubt certain confidential War Office and Admiralty documents are submitted to Lord Esher, as they are submitted to other members of the Defence Committee.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether Lord Esher had a voice in the appointments made by the War Office.
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: None whatever?
  MR. HALDANE: None.
  SIR ROBERT HOBAETasked whether the important
  1488
  and unique national services which Lord Esher had rendered to the Army and the Admiralty would be adequately rewarded.
  MR. HALDANE: In my opinion Lord Esher has rendered to the Imperial services greater benefits than the public yet fully appreciate. I wish I could hold out any hope that they will be adequately rewarded.

  Shoebury Foreshore Rights.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to consider the drafting of improved by-laws for regulating the user of the Shoebury foreshore, with a view to safeguarding the interests both of the War Office and of the local fishermen; and whether, before any draft by-laws are put into force, he will afford an opportunity to representatives of the fishermen to submit suggestions on the draft.
  MR. HALDANE: The draft by-laws are now under consideration, and the interests of the local fishermen will be safeguarded as far as possible. The draft by-laws will be advertised in accordance with the provisions of the Military Lands Acts, and fishermen and others concerned will be afforded an opportunity to submit suggestions on the draft.

  London Defences.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any of the sites and buildings connected with the defences of London have yet been disposed of.
  MR. HALDANE: None of the sites have as yet been disposed of.

  Provost Marshal's Assistants.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Lichfield Division of Staffordshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the point as to the powers conferred on provost marshal's assistants in time of war; and if he can state what those powers will be.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, Sir, and it is intended to draw up a code of rules for

  1489
  the guidance of the provost marshal in the field and his assistants in charge of prisons in the field. Such code will admit of some elasticity to meet varied condition of climate, locality, etc.
  *Sir CHARLES DILKEasked if there would be regulations as to the kind of people to be appointed to this office.
  MR. HALDANE: That is one of the points we are dealing with. The office is an important one, and we are endeavouring to make sure the right people are appointed.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the rules be laid on the Table of the House, or, if not, will any document be laid before Parliament on the subject?
  MR. HALDANE: I think my best course will be to undertake to lay the rules before Parliament.
  MR. LEA: Will they receive the sanction of Parliament before coming into operation?
  MR. HALDANE: If necessity arises they can be discussed after they have been laid on the Table. They will, however, be framed with the utmost care, and I hope there will be no necessity for discussing them.

  Army Statistics.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present effective strength of the Royal Horse and Field Artillery, the Royal Garrison Artillery, and the Infantry of the Line respectively, distinguishing in each case between those on the British and Indian establishments respectively.
  MR. HALDANE: The figures for warrant and non-commissioned officers and men on the 1st March were as follows:—

  British Establishment.

  Indian Establishment.

  Royal Horse and Field Artillery

  19,392

  10,039

  Royal Garrison Artillery (including Artillery clerks)

  14,199

  5,291

  Infantry of the Line

  81,485

  54,787

  Burmese Railways.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India by whose authority and under what circumstances the official name of the Mandalay-Kunlōn Ferry line of the Burma Railways system was changed to that of the Lashio Branch; for what reasons the opening to traffic of the Mandalay-Kunlōn Ferry line beyond Lashio is delayed or is in abeyance; what steps have been taken to preserve the works and buildings already completed between Lashio and the Salwen River at or near the Kunlōn Ferry from deterioration by climatic or other causes, also to conserve the survey marks on the same section; and what was the net total cost of the alternative survey executed in 1900, from the proposed crossing of the Myitnge River near Lashio, via Hsinwi and Möng La, to the Salwen River on the route of the Mandalay-Kunlōn Ferry line.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE,): It was decided in 1903 that the extension of the Burma Railway towards Kunlon should not be carried beyond Lashio, and the extension is consequently sometimes spoken of as the Lashio Branch. The decision to stop at Lashio was based on the view that, having regard to the unfavourable prospects of the line, any extension beyond Lashio would be an unwise and unjustifiable employment of Indian funds while so many more urgently required and more promising schemes were calling for attention. I am not aware that any work or buildings have been constructed between Lashio and the Salwen River, or what steps have been taken for conserving the survey marks. With regard to the alternative route from Lashio to the Salwen River via Hsinwi, a reconnaissance survey of this route was carried out in 1898–99, and the cost of the line was roughly estimated at Rs.1,35,00,000 (£900,000).

  Grants to Jamaica.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the sum of £40,000 was granted to the Island of Jamaica in the year 1781; whether this was a free grant or a loan; and for what purpose the grant was made.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. Harcourt, Lancashire, Rossendale; for Mr. Churchill): I find it stated in "Bridges' Annals of Jamaica" that in the year 1781 the British Parliament sent a donation of £40,000 in specie to relieve distress in Jamaica resulting from a hurricane. The Under-secretary of State asks me to say that he regrets that he failed previously to discover this record. It may interest the hon. Member also to know that it is stated in the same record that "some alleviation of the public distress was also obtained by the immediate permission of a free trade with Ireland."
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet been able to ascertain whether a free grant of £100,000 was made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the Colony of Jamaica in the year 1833; whether, at the same time, a loan was granted; if so, for how much; and whether the said loan has been repaid.
  MR. HARCOURT: No free grant was made by Parliament to the Colony of Jamaica at the period referred to. Two loans were granted, to which the Under-Secretary referred in his Answer to a previous Question of the hon. Member, on account of loss of public and private property caused by insurrections. £244,100 was lent to private estates, and £200,000 to the Colonial Government. Only a part of each loan was repaid.

  Jamaica and British War Expenditure.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies at what date the sum of £1,000,000 was voted by the Colony of Jamaica as a contribution towards the expenses of the war between the British Empire and the French Republic; and at what date that sum was paid.
  MR. HARCOURT: This money was not voted. In the Under-Secretary's reply to the hon. Member's Question a fortnight ago he used the word "subscribed" and his statement rests on the authority of the Official Jamaica Handbook, which states that no less than £1,000,000 was voluntarily subscribed to help England. He apprehends that the expenditure may have been incurred
  1492
  for the prosecution of the War in the West Indies, the cost of which largely fell on the Colony, but he has no precise information upon this matter.

  Ceylon Pearl Fisheries.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir West Ridgway has handed over the profits he has made from the Ceylon Pearl Fisheries to the Treasury, in order that they may be used for the benefit of the people of Ceylon.
  MR. HARCOURT: I have no information on this subject.
  *MR. SMEATON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware it is estimated that there has been a capital loss to the Colony of nearly two millions sterling, and that the public of Ceylon and of other Colonies conversant with the case regard the transaction from start to finish as an unmitigated job?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of any Question dealing with figures.

  Imperial Preference by Shipping Regulations.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by the High Commissioner for New Zealand to the effect that it would be possible to establish a scheme of Imperial preference throughout the Empire by means of amended shipping regulations; and whether the Government will take any steps in the direction suggested.
  MR. HARCOURT: The question will no doubt be discussed at the Colonial Conference.

  Western Pacific—Mr. Deakin's Despatch.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, of 20th April, regarding affairs in the Western Pacific, which is referred to in paragraph 9 of Mr. Deakin's despatch of 13th June, 1906, in Cd. 3288, page 38.
  MR. HARCOURT: The despatch mentioned was a, secret despatch, which it is not considered desirable in the public interest to lay upon the Table of the House.

  Dinuzulu.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON:I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the action brought by the Zulu chief Dinuzulu against his late secretary, at Nongomo, in Natal, on the 23rd ultimo, was adjourned sine die in consequence of instructions received from the Colonial Secretary; if so, will he say why such official interference with the ordinary course of justice took place; whether the plaintiff had incurred heavy expense; and what further action the Colonial Secretary proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. HARCOURT: No official information to this effect has been received. Inquiry is being made of the Governor.

  Repatriation of Chinese Labourers.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies what practical steps are being taken by the mine owners in the Transvaal to repatriate those Chinese labourers whose indentures will expire at the end of June.
  MR. HARCOURT: No official information has been received on the subject since the new Government came into office.

  The Gordon Drill in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. MACKARNESS:I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is no win a position to give any information as to the value of the new Gordon drill as a labour-saving machine in the Transvaal gold mines.
  MR. HARCOURT: No, Sir, there is no information which can be added to the Answer given to the hon. Member on the 14th of February.†

  Transvaal Government and Chinese Labour.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
  †See (4) Debates, clxix., 305.
  1494
  whether he has any official information which he can convey to the House as to the decision of the Transvaal Government on the question of the employment of Chinese labourers in that Colony.
  MR. HARCOURT: No, Sir.
  MR. FIENNES: As Clause 50 of the Constitution does not give latitude to the Transvaal Government to regulate its own affairs as it thinks best, may I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the speech of the Prime Minister of the Transvaal yesterday?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Gentleman is giving information, not asking a Question.
  MR. FIENNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that speech in which the Prime Minister of the Transvaal said, "We trust Britain, and we want Britain to trust us. Give us latitude to regulate our own affairs as we think best"?
  MR. HARCOURT: Yes; I am aware of the speech, and I have no doubt that the Secretary for the Colonies is aware of it.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Transvaal Government decided not to announce its labour policy until the month of June?
  MR. HARCOURT: No; that is a subject on which I have no personal information.

  Native Labour in the Transvaal.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to increasing the supply of Native labour for the gold mines, the Government of the Transvaal has opened negotiations with the various Governments in South Africa; and, if so, whether he can say how far the Portuguese authorities are willing to go in order to meet the wishes of the Transvaal Government by giving full facilities for recruiting in Portuguese territory.
  MR. HARCOURT: The Transvaal Government has not at present made any

  1495
  communications to the Secretary of State on the subject of their labour policy.
  MR. FIENNES: Arising out of that Answer, in order to prepare the abnormally sensitive and humane minds of the hon. Member for South Berks and others would it not be advisable for the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to give some information to the House concerning the evils that are attendant on free recruiting in South Africa?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. MACKARNESS: I shall repeat my Question.

  Benguelea Railway.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that 2,000 Indians are detained in Natal, though they are anxious to leave for Lobito Bay to work upon the Benguelea Railway, and whether, if the Answer be in the affirmative, the Government will dispose as speedily as may be of any administrative or technical obstacles which stand between these labourers and their work.
  MR. HARCOURT: The Secretary of State has been in communication with the India Office, and learns that the Government of India have now stated that they do not raise any objection to the employment of these Indians. The Governor of Natal has been informed to-day accordingly.

  Fraudulent Bankruptcy in Russia and Poland.
  Sir W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any statement or report from His Majesty's Consuls in Russia and Poland as to systematic fraudulent bankruptcy among traders in that country.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury, for Sir Edward Grey): No such reports have been received.

  Lights in the Mediterranean—Wreck of the "Imperatrix."
  MR. THORNTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Wands-
  1496
  worth, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is he aware that the recent wreck of the s s. "Imperatrix," with many lives, was owing to the absence of any light on the south-west coast of Crete; that there is no lighthouse or light in the Mediterranean between Cape Matapan (Greece) and Gavdo Island, a distance of 123 nautical miles; that the south-west coast of Crete is in the midway between those two points; and that even the light on Gavdo Island, being so high as 1,149 feet above sea level, is invisible in cloudy weather, and therefore often not available; and whether he will move the proper authorities to consider the erection of a light on Kavo Krio, a headland in Crete near the wreck, which is said by competent authorities to be suitable for the purpose.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Government have no information as to the causes which led to the wreck of the Austrian steamship "Imperatrix," nor have they received any applications during the last thirteen years from the British shipping interested for the establishment of a light on the south-west extremity of Crete.

  Hague Conference and Disarmament.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any exchange of views between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States on the question of proposing to the forthcoming Hague Conference an international agreement for the reduction or arrest of armaments; and, if not, will he consider the wisdom of approaching President Roosevelt on the subject.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend is unable, at present, to make any statement with regard to the communications that have passed or may pass between the Powers in regard to this subject.

  United States and Coastal Trade.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, and, if so, in what respect, the interpretation of coastal trade by the United States differs from that accepted in this country; and

  1497
  whether, if such a difference of interpretation exists, it would be possible for this country to adopt a similar definition of coastal trade.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The carrying trade between the United Kingdom and the various British Colonies and Possessions, as well as the carrying trade between ports of the United Kingdom, and also inter-colonial trade, has long been free from any restriction as to the nationality of vessel. The United States treat the carrying trade between their Atlantic and Pacific seaboards as coasting trade, and reserve it to national vessels, and they also reserve the trade between their oversea possessions of Porto Rico and Hawaii. The question appears to be one of policy, and it is not proposed to change the policy which we have hitherto adopted.

  Canadian Tariffs.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that Canada imposes a surtax against those countries which treat Canadian products less favourably than those of any other country, she is entitled, under the most-favoured-nation clause in the treaties with Servia and Roumania, and the convention with Bulgaria, to most-favoured-nation treatment from those countries if she extends the general tariff to them; and whether, if by a special treaty Canada agrees to extend the intermediate tariff to any foreign country, she must also extend the intermediate tariff to the above countries.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Answer to both Questions is in the affirmative. To prevent misunderstanding, my right hon. friend would point out that Canada is free to adhere to these treaties or not as she pleases.

  French Railway on the Yunnan Frontier.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present state of progress on the French Colonial Railway from Hanoi to Lao-kai on the Yunnan frontier, the construction of which was begun about 1902.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The line has been completed, and was opened for traffic on 1st February, 1906.

  The Assuan Dam.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the Resolution come to by the Egyptian authorities on the 21st instant to proceed forthwith with the increasing of the height of the Assuan Dam by seven metres; whether he is aware that last year doubts were raised by men of scientific eminence as to whether the strains and stresses at present borne by the Assuan Dam, even at its present height, had been properly calculated; whether he has satisfied himself as to the want of foundation for these fears by inquiry of the best engineering experts; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of suggesting to the authorities in Egypt the appointment by them of a small committee of scientific men to go thoroughly into the matter, and so obviate the possibility of an accident happening which might cause disastrous loss of life and property in Egypt.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: A despatch has just been received from Lord Cromer fully explaining the reasons which have led the Egyptian Government to arrive at the decision to raise the Assuan Dam. It will be presented to Parliament in due course. In the meantime, it would not be desirable that my right hon. friend should answer questions on isolated points in connection with this matter.
  MR. CHEETHAM: Does the Egyptian Government propose to take any steps for the preservation of ancient monuments which have already suffered serious injury?
  MR. RUNCIMANasked for notice of the Question.

  Macedonian Financial Commission.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, and, if so, when, His Majesty's Government will publish the Reports received from the British member of the Financial Commission in Macedonia.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Papers are now being prepared, and will be laid shortly.

  Distribution of Equivalent Grant.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what are the

  1499
  arrangements made with regard to the Equivalent Grant to England and Wales, Ireland, and Scotland; whether it has been the rule that the grant need not be spent on the same object; and whether the Equivalent Grant has been made on the principle of the amount of taxes paid by each part of the United Kingdom.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith,): No fixed rules have been or could possibly be laid down in this matter. "Equivalent Grants" have in most cases been made applicable to purposes akin to those of the original grants, but there are notable exceptions. The basis on which such grants have been calculated has been the proportion of the assumed total contributions of each country to the revenue.

  National Finances—Alleged Improper Appropriation of Surpluses.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, although Section 5 of the Appropriation Act, 1905, only empowered the Treasury to authorise the Board of Admiralty to defray expenditure not provided for out of surpluses effected by the saving of expenditure and not otherwise, and only empowered them to deal with appropriation in aid to the extent of sums not exceeding in all £1,688,687, the Treasury have, nevertheless, contrary to the Act, taken upon themselves to authorise the application to expenditure of £120,938 19s. 7d., which is not a saving of expenditure but an excess of receipts beyond the total sums appropriated in aid of naval expenditure by the Appropriation Act, 1905; whether a precisely similar course under precisely similar circumstances was taken by the Treasury in regard to a sum of £172,392 13s. 4d. on the Army Votes; why the Treasury thus took upon itself to exercise powers beyond those conferred upon it by law, and reported by the officer appointed to examine the public accounts on behalf of this House to be without statutory sanction; whether he will direct these two sums, amounting together to £293,331 12s. 11d., to be surrendered to the Exchequer; and whether he will undertake that in future the Treasury shall set an example to the other departments of strict obedience to the law.
  MR. ASQUITH: Before I read my Answer to the hon. Member, I beg to assure him that my sole object in asking him to postpone his Question until to-day was in order that I might obtain the fuller information which I have now got, and which, I am afraid, will trespass for some time on the attention of the House. I agree generally with the hon. Member in his interpretation of Section 5 of the Appropriation Act, 1905, and gave orders, as soon as the matter was brought to my personal notice, that an Amendment should be drafted so as to make it quite clear in future that the Treasury's temporary powers shall extend to making up any deficiency upon the receipts appropriated in aid of any Navy (or Army) Vote out of the surplus receipts on account of appropriations in aid on other Navy (or Army) Votes respectively. My decision has been communicated by the Treasury to the Public Accounts Committee, who are considering the Navy and Army Appropriation Accounts on which the Comptroller and Auditor-General raised the question; and their approval will be sought forthwith to the draft Amendment of the Treasury, which has already been agreed to both by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and by the authorities of the House. So far, I have dealt with the steps to be taken for regularising the position for the future. As regards the current year, I may add that in the Treasury Minutes of the 22nd inst., which were laid in dummy on the Table of the House on Friday, the temporary application of anticipated surpluses to meet anticipated deficits on Navy and Army Votes for 1906–7 has accordingly been dealt with exclusively on the basis of using surpluses effected by the saving of expenditure without applying any extra receipts. I now propose to deal with the second part of the Question, in which the hon. Member asks, with reference to the year 1905–6, that sums of £120,938 19s. 7d. in respect of the Navy and of £172,392 13s. 4d. in respect of the Army may be surrendered to the Exchequer. These sums represent the gross excess of actual over estimated receipts on certain Navy and Army Votes respectively, and I will now indicate how, if they had been surrendered eo nomine to the Exchequer, the Exchequer and the old Sinking Fund could not have received one penny more

  1501
  than the net surplus of £237,758 19s. 2d. on the Navy or of £1,334,136 17s. 10d. on the Army, as shown on the face of the Appropriation Accounts for the respective services. As the hon. Member will see, this result flows from the fact that there was an unexhausted balance of authorised grants from the Exchequer, out of which the deficiences of receipts appropriated in aid of certain Navy and Army Votes could have been made good without making any use of the surpluses of receipts which have arisen on certain other Votes. All that would have happened would have been two payments of extra receipts into the Exchequer and a precisely equal increase of the two payments out of the Exchequer under the head of Exchequer Grants.†This explanation will, I trust, satisfy the hon. Member that the action actually taken by the Treasury, in accordance with an unchallenged practice of many years standing, amounts in substance to precisely the same thing, so far as the Exchequer is concerned, as payment of the excess Navy and Army receipts into the Exchequer and the consequent issue of a correspondingly larger sum out of the Exchequer under the head of authorised Exchequer Grants.
  MR. BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that his action in authorising the application of these moneys in this way was unlawful?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have said that on the technical point I agree with the hon. Gentleman. But the action taken by the Treasury is one that has been pursued for twelve years under I do not know how many successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. I see one sitting opposite. It was treated so much as a matter of routine that it was never even brought to my notice. But as regards the future, I agree that we must regularise the proceeding if it is to continue.
  LORD R. CECIL:The right hon. Gentleman says his delay in giving the Answer was to enable him to give fuller information. May I ask him whether he was cognisant of a notice of Motion put down by the hon. Member for Barnstaple for the sole
  †See also Col. 1457.
  1502
  purpose of preventing a discussion of the matter in the House?
  MR. ASQUITH: I never heard of the Motion until it was put down. I may say, in regard to the suggestion of the noble Lord, that there is no desire to burke discussion. There will be ample opportunity for discussing the matter on the Motion for Adjournment on Wednesday.
  LORD R. CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any appeal to his hon. friend to withdraw the Motion?
  MR. ASQUITH: I shall be glad to do so.
  MR. BOWLESgave notice that at the end of Questions he would ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the matter.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As the right hon. Gentleman says, I am a fellow culprit. I am, therefore, less interested in the past of this matter than in the future. As to what the right hon. Gentleman proposes for the future, do I rightly understand him to say that the change in the law which he proposes will only authorise excess of receipts to be used to supply a deficiency in receipts, and not a deficiency in the Votes arising otherwise?
  MR. ASQUITH: If the right hon. Gentleman will put down his Question on the Paper I will give him a direct Answer. What I intended to imply was that the practice should continue in the future as in the past, not that there should be any alteration.
  MR. RAWLINSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the proper way of dealing with the admitted illegality would not be to introduce a Supplementary Estimate?
  MR. ASQUITH: I think not. The matter is before the Public Accounts Committee, and any recommendation they may make will receive the careful consideration of the Government. I think it can be got rid of under the Appropriation Act.
  *MR. LEIF JONES: Is not illegality much too strong a word to use? Is not the proposal merely to confer explicitly by the Appropriation Act powers which have hitherto been deemed to reside implicitly in the Treasury?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is so.

  Canadian Companies' Capital.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any information as to the approximate amount or the proportion of the capital of public industrial companies in Canada which is held by persons resident in the United Kingdom.
  MR. ASQUITH:I have no information which would enable me to make even an approximate estimate.

  The Budget.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state upon what date he proposes to make his Budget Statement.
  MR. ASQUITH: I hope to be able to make the Budget Statement on Thursday, April 18th.

  Judges' Allowances.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the amount received by the Judges on circuit to Newcastle and Bristol since 31st March, 1906, for table money and travelling expenses respectively.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The information asked for is as follows:—

  NEWCASTLE.

  "Subsistence allowance" at £7 10s. a day

  £180

  0

  0

  First class railway fares

  9

  11

  3

  £189

  11

  3

  BRISTOL.

  "Subsistence Allowance" at £7 10s. a day

  £292

  10

  0

  First class railway fares

  4

  17

  6

  £297

  7

  6

  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the £7 10s. daily in addition to the salary?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes.

  Factory Inspectors and Inquests.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state to what extent inspectors' assistants have been sent to inquests to represent his Department; and whether they have gone as principals or only as advisers to other inspectors.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone, Leeds, W.): In 1906 inquests were attended on six occasions by factory inspectors' assistants, on four of which they accompanied an inspector. As the hon. Member is aware, the fatal accidents in workshops are very few.

  Crime in East Yorkshire.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that during the year 1905 there were in the East Riding of York seventy-eight habitual criminals at large, thirty persons under police protection, 1,718 indictable crimes known to the police, two cases of murder, five cases of arson, three cases of felonious wounding, one case of unnatural offence, two cases of indecency with males, two cases of indecent assault on females, five cases of defilement of girls under thirteen, three cases of defilement of girls under sixteen, and 161 cases of malicious damage; and what steps he intends to take to remedy this state of affairs.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The figures given by the hon. Member correspond closely to those in the Criminal Statistics for 1905, though there are one or two errors of detail. Most of the crime mentioned arises in the seaport of Hull—there is very little in the remainder of the Riding. I have every confidence that the police are well able to deal with the matter.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Were these crimes agrarian crimes?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Women and Children in Public Houses.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that recent investigation has established the fact that in many quarters of London and other large towns every day of the week, from morning till late at night, the public houses are crowded with women, who not only bring their little children into the heated atmosphere of public bars, but also dose their infants with alcohol; that eminent export authorities attribute the physical and moral deterioration of certain classes of the people to the fact above stated; and whether, in the coming Licensing Bill, he will consider the urgency of including a provision that no child shall, under any pretext whatever, be allowed to enter a public house.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think the state of affairs is quite so bad as is represented by the hon. Member, but I agree that the question—though by no means a new or recently discovered one—is serious, and it is engaging my earnest attention.
  MR. LEA: Will there be a clause in the Licensing Bill to prohibit this sort of thing?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can add nothing to my Answer.
  MR. LEA: And if prohibition is insisted on will it also be extended to clubs?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will give full information when I introduce the Bill.

  Salford Stipendiary Magistrates and Passive Resisters.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the language employed by the stipendiary magistrate of Salford when several Christian ministers and other prominent citizens, passive resistors, were before him; whether, when they said they must obey God, he told them to go to God's country, to go anywhere, if they could not obey the laws of England to go to Canada; whether he refused to include the cases under one warrant, though admitting his discretion to do so; whether, on the same day and under the same roof other magistrates, unpaid,
  1506
  adjourned similar cases for a month pending the issue of a Bill now before this House; and whether he proposes to take any action towards the stipendiary magistrate in question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not responsible for the observations made by magistrates in court, and have no power to interfere with their discretion in dealing with matters that come before them judicially; but I may say that I am informed that at the close of the hearing mentioned in the Question the spokesman for the defendants thanked the magistrate for the courtesy with which he had listened to them. The magistrate would have liked to include all the cases in one distress warrant, but after the matter had been carefully argued was satisfied that he had no power to do so.

  Hull Chief Constable and Juvenile Offenders.
  MR. BYLES:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the report by Major Malcolm, Chief Constable of Hull, of his scheme (adopted by the health committee of the corporation) for dealing with juvenile offenders, in view of the results, extending to 600 cases in six months, in keeping the children from contact with the police court and in preventing a recurrence of the offences; whether he will consider the advisability of proceeding, either by legislation or administrative action, in regard to juvenile offenders in all the great towns; and can he say in how many places separate courts or some method of separate treatment have been set up for accused persons of tender age.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have now seen Major Malcolm's report. The scheme he has adopted with the approval of the watch committee appears to have worked admirably during the six months it has been in operation. But it involves the Chief Constable exercising something very nearly akin to judicial functions, and I doubt whether I could properly recommend its general adoption. I shall watch the further progress of Major Malcolm's experiment with interest. I trust that the Probation of Offenders Bill which I have introduced will assist in dealing with the juvenile offenders in

  1507
  large towns. Full particulars as to the separation of children in police courts are given in a Return prepared by the Home Office and circulated to Members last Friday.

  Criminals at Large.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of habitual criminals at large in England under police supervision during the years 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, and the months of January and February, 1907.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The figures for 1906 are not yet complete, and monthly Returns on this subject are not made to the Home Office. The number of persons under police supervision for the years 1901 to 1905 were 2,769, 2,542, 2,531, 2,778, 3,050.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: How many of them are of Irish birth and what proportion are they to the population?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Crime in Wiltshire.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of indictable offences in the county of Wiltshire for the years 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, and the months of January and February 1907, under the following heads: murder, attempt of murder, threats or conspiracy to murder, malicious wounding, indecent assualt on females, defilement of girls under thirteen, arson, killing and maiming cattle, malicious damage, stealing animals, trees, fruit, etc.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member will find the figures he requires for the years 1901 to 1905 in the Annual Volumes of Criminal Statistics, Tables XXIII and XXIV.
  MR. MOONEY: What are the figures for January and February this year?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not got them.
  MR. MOONEY: How is it that when a similar Question as to Ireland is addressed to the Irish Secretary the figures
  1508
  are at once forthcoming, and yet they are not obtainable for England?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Probably it is due to the fact that the Returns are not made monthly in this country.

  Crimes in England.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will state the number of crimes in England in the years 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1906, and the months of January and February 1907, under the following heads: murder, attempts to murder, threats or conspiracy to murder, manslaughter, felonious wounding, intimidation and molestation, unnatural offences, attempts to commit unnatural offences, indecency with males, indecent assault on females, defilement of girls under thirteen, defilement of girls under sixteen, setting fire to crops, killing and maiming cattle, arson, and malicious injury.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The figures for 1906 are not complete. There are no monthly Returns. The hon. Member will find the other figures he requires in Table XIX of the Annual Volumes of Criminal Statistics.
  MR. MOONEY: What is the reason for the difference of procedure in England and Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say. It is a matter of administration.

  Penge Vaccination Prosecution.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Manger, Penge, who has been mulcted at the Bromley police count in £4 5s. of penalty and costs for non-vaccination of his child; and whether, in view of the intentions of the legislature, he will take measures to prevent in future such accumulations of costs.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no authority to interfere with the discretion of magistrates in the matter of costs, but I have made inquiry in the case and find that the large amount of costs to which the defendant became liable was due to the fact that at Bromley defendants in vaccination cases are usually

  1509
  represented by counsel, the vaccination officer has therefore to be legally represented, and the justices consider that the cost involved should fall on the defendant rather than on the ratepayers.
  MR. LUPTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that vaccination is still compulsory?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Juvenile Woman Suffragists.
  Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by the magistrate with reference to the case of a girl of tender age who had been brought to London from Lancashire by the suffragettes; and, if so, what action he proposes to take.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have seen a report of the magistrate's remarks on the case of two girls, one from Preston, and the other from Huddersfield, which I think were justified. The magistrate tells me that he has made satisfactory arrangements for one of them to go home to her friends to-day, and he hopes, if the other will consent, to deal with her in the same way next Wednesday.

  Bankrupt Aliens.
  Sir W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the gross loss to creditors from bankruptcies of aliens during the last five years; and what proportion of such loss is due to different nationalities.
  I beg further to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state how many aliens have been made bankrupt in this country in the last five years; how many of these bankruptcies occurred in London; what is the average payment to creditors of native and alien bankrupts respectively; how many alien bankrupts have been found, in the same period, not to have kept books; what is the average proportion of assets of debts as between native and alien bankrupts; how many bankrupts have been Russian subjects; and how many have stated that, prior to their insolvency, they made their
  1510
  business over to their wives or other relatives.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): No separate statistics for aliens have been kept by the Board of Trade which will enable me to furnish information as to the number of, or the losses to creditors from bankruptcies of aliens during the last five years, but I may remind the hon. Member that some figures on this subject were given by the Senior Official Receiver of the London (High Court) District in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration of which the hon. Gentleman was a member.
  Sir W. EVANS GORDON: Are there no figures more recent?
  MR. KEARLEY: No, Sir.

  Newbury Railway Station.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Western Railway station at Newbury was built fifty-nine years ago and has never been adapted to the altered conditions and increased traffic of the last few years, due to the construction of the Did cot, Newbury, and Southampton line and the Lambourn Valley line, and the diversion of main line trains to the West of England to the Newbury line; that there are only two lines of rails to convey the whole of the goods, ordinary, and express traffic through the station; that not less than sixty trains run into the station daily, in addition to goods and fast express trains, the pace of the latter being such as to sweep luggage off the narrow platform and endanger the lives of persons standing on it; that the Corporation of Newbury has twice passed formal resolutions urging the Great Western Railway Board to build a new station, but that nothing has been done to meet their wishes; and whether he will inquire into the above facts.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade are informed by the company that the directors have authorised the expenditure necessary for the reconstruction of this station on modern lines and the work will be undertaken as soon as the necessary land can be acquired. The company's letter also deals at length with other

  1511
  points referred to in my hon. friend's Question, and I am sending him a copy.

  British Imports of Iron and Steel Manufactures.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of the imports of iron and steel manufactures into the British Empire as a whole from all foreign countries; and what was the total value of the exports of the same from the British Empire as a whole to all foreign countries for each of the years 1900–5.
  MR. KEARLEY: My right hon. friend is having a statement prepared showing so far as possible the information required by the right hon. Gentleman, and will communicate it to him.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the Statistical Abstract of trades of the British Empire, published by the Board of Trade, discloses no such manufactured articles exported from the British Empire? Will he take care that in future the record is made more accurate?
  MR. KEARLEY: I must ask for notice of that question.

  Railway Companies Combination.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had any correspondence with railway companies concerning the recent development of combination among them; and, if so, will he lay the same upon the Table.
  MR. KEARLEY: The reply to both Questions is in the affirmative.

  Dover Harbour—Proposed Increase of the Poll Tax.
  MR. W. R. REA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any application has been made by the Dover Harbour Board to the Board of Trade, under Section 27 of The Dover Harbour (Works, etc.) Act, 1906, for their consent to an increase of the poll tax on passengers landing or embarking at Dover; and, if so, what steps the Board propose to take before coming to a decision on the application.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade have received an application under the section referred to for their consent to the raising of the poll tax from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. Before coming to any decision on this application it is intended to hold a public inquiry at the offices of the Board of Trade on Wednesday, 10th April, at 11 a.m., at which inquiry any persons interested in the matter may attend and be heard.

  Lord de Ramsey and his Allotment Tenants.
  MR. A. ALLEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many allotment holders received notice from Lord de Ramsey in the spring of 1906; how many of such allotment holders have since obtained allotments under the urban district council; and whether the rental charged by Lord de Ramsey to the urban district council is more than that previously charged to the men.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a case for libel is pending with regard to this question?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns, Battersea): Yes, Sir; and my Answer will not in any sense affect that. I am informed that the number of holders of allotment lands belonging to Lord de Ramsey in Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire who received notice from him in the spring of 1906 was 580, of whom 488 held allotments in the urban district of Ramsey. It is stated that twenty of these persons resided outside the district, thirty-two more occupied other allotments, and forty-six occupied other land to the extent of five or more acres, and that hence the number of the previous allotment holders for whom the urban district council could provide allotments was 390. The number of persons who have taken allotments under the council is209, some of whom, however, had not previously held allotments. It is added that the council had the opportunity of acquiring land for all persons qualified and willing to accept allotments under them, and that they repeatedly invited applications. I understand that the rents charged by Lord de Ramsey to the men for the lands now

  1513
  taken by the council averaged £2 6s. 10d. per aero, Lord de Ramsey paying all rates and taxes The rents charged for the same lands to the council average £2 0s. 5d., but the council pay rates and taxes, which average 13s. 1d. per acre.

  Grand Committee Rooms.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what arrangements are being made for the provision of suitable rooms for Grand Committees, in view of the Government proposals to double the number of Grand Committees and to increase their work.
  I beg also to ask the First Commissioner of Works if, considering the proposal to multiply the work of Grand Committees, he can avoid the overcrowding and improve the desk accommodation in the large committee room.
  I beg further to ask the First Commissioner of Works if suitable provision can be made to enlarge accommodation for the public and the Press in the Grand Committee rooms, considering that all Bills, except those withheld by Resolution of the House, are in future to be sent upstairs.
  MR. HARCOURT: If and when new Grand Committees are brought into existence I shall consider what temporary accommodation can be provided for them pending structural alterations of a more permanent character. I am inquiring into improved accommodation for Press and public and desks in the existing rooms.

  House Attendants and All-Night Sittings.
  Dr. COOPER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the attendants in his Department who remained on duty during the prolonged sitting will receive extra remuneration or relief from duty; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of recognising in some fitting manner their long hours of attendance on this occasion.
  MR. HARCOURT: Arrangements for the staff of my Department at the House are made with special reference to the liability to occasional extra duty. There
  1514
  are relief shifts to avoid continuous duty and special privileges as to extra leave as compensation for unavoidable overtime.

  Worcestershire Education Grant.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the complaint of the Worcestershire County Council that sometimes as many as six, eight, and ten months elapse before a grant earned by the council is paid over; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the payment of grants earned may be made at an interval not greater than three months from the notification that the grant has been earned.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKENNA, Monmouth, N.): My attention has been called to the complaint referred to, but I have not been informed whether the grants in question are in respect of elementary, secondary, or technical education, or in respect of what particular schools delay is alleged to have occurred. I have no knowledge of any undue delay, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with this information, I will cause inquiries to be made. In the case of elementary schools, the payment is usually made by the same post that the notification is despatched.

  Teachers' Salaries Return.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when the Education Return as to the salaries of teachers in voluntary schools will be presented.
  MR. McKENNA: The statement has already been presented, and is now in the printers' hands. It will be available for Members to-night or to-morrow.

  August Bank Holiday and the Law Courts.
  MR. RADFORD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, having regard to the fact that under the Order in Council of the 1st instant the long vacation now begins on the 1st August, and that little or no legal business can be done in the several offices of the Supreme Court on the August Bank Holiday, he will consider the advisability

  1515
  of making a representation to the Rule Committee suggesting the amendment of the Rules of the Supreme Court so that the first Monday in August may be added to the days on which the offices are closed.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,)said he had made representations on that point.

  Salmon Fisheries Bill.
  MR. BECKETT: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can give any information as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government in relation to the Report of the late Royal Commission on Salmon Fisheries; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation this session dealing with the subject on the lines recommended in that Report.
  Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: A Bill has been introduced by my noble friend which will enable the recommendations of the Royal Commission to be carried out.

  Treatment of Youthful Offenders.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he would grant, with regard to Scotland, a Return similar to that moved for by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, dealing with the treatment of youthful offenders, specifying the number of young persons charged with offences, stating how far a system of probation might have been applied to their cases; and telling the steps taken in the court of each district to separate children from adult prisoners.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I shall be glad to adjust the terms of such a Return if my hon. friend will communicate any suggestions.

  Scottish Salmon Fishery Rights.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that after the House of Lords' decision in 1859 that no person had a right to fish for salmon in the Scottish seas without grant from the Crown, 345
  1516
  persons exercising salmon fishing on the sea coast were asked to produce their charters, that a large number confessed want of title, and that an annual rental of £1,200 was restored to the public; and whether he will call for a similar production of the charters of the persons claiming salmon rights in the rivers of Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIR: It is a fact that, about the time of the decision referred to in the Question, many owners of estates on the sea coasts of Scotland were asked to produce their titles to the salmon fishings in the sea. Of those who responded some showed a good title and others confessed want of title. In many cases there was no response, and the titles were examined by reference to the records in Edinburgh. In the result the Crown established the right to a large number of salmon fishings in the sea, and a rental of them now amounts to between £7,000 and £8,000 a year. Up to the present time there has been no general or systematic invitation to landowners whose estates abut on Scottish salmon rivers to produce their titles, followed in case of refusal by an investigation of the records, as from the experience of such investigations that have been made it appeared probable that the results would not be of sufficient importance to justify the expense involved; but a certain number of special cases have been from time to time investigated as circumstances have provided occasion for so doing, with varying results. It should be explained that according to the law of Scotland persons may acquire a right to salmon fishings, not only by an express grant of such fishings from the Crown, but also by (1) a Barony title to their estates coupled with possession of salmon fishings for the prescriptive period, or (2) a grant of fishings in general terms coupled with possession of salmon fishings. A reference to the charters of the estate is therefore very often insufficient in itself to show whether there is a title to salmon fishings, and it has to be supplemented by evidence as to possession. The Commissioners of Woods, who have been good enough to supply the above information, always take action should they obtain information as to any cases in which there is reason to believe that Crown rights are being invaded.

  Education (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Education (Scotland) Bill will extend the franchise to occupiers of holdings of a less rental value than £4 per annum, and give to all persons entitled to vote at council elections in Scotland a vote at school board elections.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Under the Bill it is proposed to make the school board franchise the same as that for parish council elections.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to arrange that the text of this Bill and also that of the Small Landowners Bill shall be available for use during the Easter recess?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Every effort shall be made with that object.

  Arbroath Railway Fatality.
  MR. BELL:I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that G. Gourlay, driver of the ill-fated train at Arbroath on 28th December last, was arrested and criminally charged before the public inquiry was held; whether he is aware that such procedure is not practised in other parts of the United Kingdom; and whether, with a view to removing possible injustice in future, he will arrange that men shall not, under such circumstances, be arrested and charged before public inquiries are held.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Thomas Shaw,): The first two paragraphs correctly represent the facts. I am obliged to my hon. friend for calling my attention to this matter; and I have issued an instruction to the Procurators Fiscal in Scotland that if there be circumstances pointing to special urgency of arrest they are to report them to my Department for definite instructions and act accordingly, but that in all ordinary cases arrest is not to precede the verdict in the fatal accident's inquiry.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: Seeing that this man was under arrest so long before his trial, cannot the hon. Gentleman see his way now to remit part of the sentence?
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: That is not in my Department. I understand that all the facts are before the Secretary for Scotland at this moment.

  Pakenham-Mahon Estate, Roscommon.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that purchase agreements were signed between the owner and the tenants of the Pakenham-Mahon estate, at Dysart, county Roscommon, so far back as 1905; whether repeated applications have been made to complete the agreement and no progress made by the Estates Commissioners in the matter; and whether he will make representations to them to expedite the transfer of this estate to the tenants.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr BIRRELL,): The estate in question has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners, who have directed an inspection to be made. So far as the Commissioners are aware the tenants have not signed agreements to purchase from the owner direct.

  Seed Potatoes for Curraghmore.
  MR. BOLAND:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that no provision has been made in the congested division of Curraghmore, near Killorglin, for the acquisition, at a reduced price, of seed potatoes, seed oats, and lime; and whether, in view of the fact that owing to the representations of Mr. Jeremiah Breen, R.D.C. for this division, the scheme of supplying lime at a reduced rate was adopted by the Congested Districts Board, he will see that the advantages conferred on the neighbouring districts of Killorglin and Glenbeigh are given to the Curraghmore district.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have inquired into the circumstances of this locality, and are satisfied that no exceptional distress exists in it. The Department of Agriculture have supplied seeds and manures for a number of demonstration plots in the district of Killorglin, and it is hoped that the result will be to encourage the introduction of fresh seeds and the use of suitable manures. The

  1519
  arrangements for the present year have been completed and cannot now be extended. The Congested Districts Board are not prepared to make arrangements for supplying lime at a reduced rate in the Curraghmore division.

  Agricultural Department By-Laws—Donegal Resolutions.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the County Donegal Committee of Agriculture on the 5th instant protesting against the by-law proposed by the Agricultural Department; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take to protect the fishermen's rights from being restricted in the way complained of.
  MR. BIRRELL: The resolution referred to has been received The proposed by-law against which it protests will shortly be submitted for the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, and any person can there appeal against its provisions. I do not propose to take any steps to anticipate the decision of the Council, who will doubtless give full consideration to all the circumstances of the case.

  Duke of Abercorn's Donegal Estate.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what is the cause of the delay on the part of the Estates Commissioners in completing the sale to the tenants on the Donegal Estate of the Duke of Abercorn; if an inspector has visited the estate, and the agreements to purchase were signed in 1904; and, in view of the fact that the tenants are paying 3½ per cent. on their purchase money without reducing the term of their annuities, will he cause this sale to be immediately completed.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have taken up this case in order of priority, and have received their inspector's report upon the estate. Certain legal questions have arisen out of the report, and these have been referred to the vendor's solicitor. The completion of the sale will depend upon the rapidity with which these queries are discharged.

  Dunshaughlin Labourers Cottages.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inspector who recently held an inquiry under the Labourers Act, in Dunshaughlin, rejected twenty-five claims for extra half-acre plots and twenty-five claims for houses and acre plots; whether he is aware that the inspector's action has been strongly condemned by the Dunshaughlin District Council, as against the evidence produced at the inquiry and the wants of the district; whether there is any means, by petition or appeal, of revising the decision of the inspector; and, if no such appeal or petition is available to councils who promote schemes at expense to the rates, will he cause the rules of the Local Government Board to be so framed as to give the same rights of petition, against the decisions of inspectors, to the district councils and labourers who promote labourers' schemes as are open to parties opposing such schemes or cases in such schemes.
  MR. BIRRELL: The correct numbers of applications rejected in this case are: sixteen additional half-acres out of fifty-six proposed, and twenty-three cottages and acre plots out of ninety-six proposed. The reason for the rejection in each case has been furnished to the council, and although they have passed a resolution objecting to the inspector's decision, they have not furnished any particulars which would tend to show that his conclusions were not warranted by the facts. The Acts do not contemplate the lodgment of petitions against the inspector's decision, except in cases in which he has approved of the council's scheme, and the formulation of rules such as suggested would be in excess of the Local Government Board's jurisdiction under the Acts. The financial arrangements under the new Act allow for the erection of 25,000 additional cottages only, but the first batch of applications proposes the erection of 47,000 cottages and the acquisition of 11,000 additional allotments. It is obvious that not one half of the number asked for can be provided, and it therefore behoves the inspector to be most careful to pass those applications only in which the necessity for cottages and plots is proved beyond all doubt.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND:Is it not the case there was no intention of limiting the number of additional cottages to 25,000, and that in the debates in this House a hope was expressed that by the exercise of economy considerably more might be erected?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is correct in his recollection of what was stated in the debate. I quite agree that by the exercise of thrift and economy, and by keeping the legal expenses down, it ought to be possible to erect a much larger number of cottages.

  Ireland and Education Grants.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to give Ireland a grant as an equivalent for the £100,000 already voted for assisting the erection of new schools in England and Wales.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. Ireland has had Exchequer grants for the erection of new schools for many years, while England and Wales have not. If the principle of "equivalence" were applied, the result would be very material augmentation of the £100,000 which has now been voted for England and Wales.

  Dublin Training College—Donegal Protest.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the County Donegal Committee of Agriculture, passed at their meeting on the 5th instant, protesting against the proposal to build the technical training college in Dublin with Portland stone when a superior and cheaper stone can be found at Mountcharles, in Ireland; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made, and see that Irish material, when available, is used in all Irish Government contracts.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have nothing to add to the numerous replies that have been given on this subject.

  Ardcath (Meath) Post Office.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to establish a post office in Ardcath, county Meath, with money-
  1522
  order office attached, as the people of the village are four miles from the nearest post office, and suffer loss and inconvenience through want of postal and money-order facilities.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I have called for a report on this subject, and on its receipt I will send the hon. Member a reply.

  Kerry Mail Contract.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can say what has been the result of his inquiries into the reason why the people of Newcastle West have now to post their letters at 7.30 o'clock a.m. instead of 9 o'clock p.m., as formerly, which has caused inconvenience; and whether he will take steps to have the old system reverted to.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The contract for the mail service on the Kerry line was terminated in 1902 by the railway company, who demanded a very large increase in the payment for the maintenance of the mail trains. No increase whatever in the payment was justified by the amount of correspondence, as the service in the district already involved a heavy annual loss, and there was no alternative but to acquiesce in the modification in the service which the company proposed; and they have not seen their way to make any permanent alteration since. I am glad to say that I have found myself able to make arrangements for a despatch from Newcastle West to connect with the Fishguard and Rosslare service to England, by the use of which letters for London and the South of England will be materially accelerated in delivery.

  Government Licensing Bill.
  MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will state when the Licensing Bill, referred to in the King's Speech, will be introduced.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): No, Sir, I am afraid that I am not in a position, as yet, to make a definite statement about the Licensing Bill.
  MR. LEIF JONES: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to announce it?
  Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say. I wish I could.

  Education Grant.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: On behalf of the noble Lord the Member for the Chorley Division of Lancashire, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the item of £100,000 in Class 4, Vote 1, c. 6, entitled special provision for new schools; if a portion of this sum was included in the Vote on Account; and if, in view of Section 96 of the Education Act of 1870, which specifically forbids Parliamentary grants in aid of building, enlarging, improving, or fitting up elementary schools, he will undertake that no portion of this sum shall be spent until Section 96 is repealed.
  Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No portion of this sum is included in the Vote on Account, and, as my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education has already stated, no portion will be spent until such statutory authorisation has been obtained as may be necessary.

  Jamaica—Relief Grant.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Government will announce its decision as to a money grant towards the relief of distress resulting from the Jamaica earthquake.
  Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We are not yet in possession of the further information which has been promised; and it will not be possible to make any announcement on this subject until after the Easter recess.

  The Butter Bill.
  Sir F. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered the urgent representations made not only by the Chambers of Agriculture and other agricultural bodies, but also by the grocers and other traders, and the co-operative associations, in support of the Butter and Margarine Bill; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Bill is
  1524
  not seriously opposed or controversial, he will endeavour to get it passed and referred to the Committee on Trade at an early date after the recess.
  Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I hope this Bill will be taken on an early date after the Easter recess.

NATIONAL FINANCES—USE OF SURPLUSES.
MR. BOWLES MR. BOWLES rose to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, the unlawful action of His Majesty's Government in misappropriating £293,331 12s. 11d. of public money.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is barred from raising that Question on an Adjournment Motion by a notice of Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Barnstaple.
MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is not the hon. Member for Barnstaple private secretary to one of the Cabinet Ministers?
MR. A. J. BALFOURwished to ask the Government in reference to those who had put down what hon. Members opposite had often called a blocking Motion whether this was not a proper case for the use of "peaceful persuasion" in favour of his hon. friend raising a point, the difficulty and importance of which, he believed, were denied by nobody, least of all by the Minister concerned.
SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the hon. Member's Motion would not equally interfere with private Members' Motions for the next day to which the same remarks applied?
MR. ASQUITHpointed out that there could be no real grievance in the matter, because the hon. Gentleman could raise the whole question on the Motion for the Adjournment over Easter on Wednesday.
MR. BOWLES: But if the Motion of the hon. Member for Barnstaple remain on the Paper will that not preclude the question being raised?
*MR. SPEAKERsaid that if the Motion of the hon. Member for Barnstaple still appeared on the Paper on Wednesday the question could not be raised on the Motion for Adjournment.
MR. ASQUITH: As far as I am concerned, I will appeal to the hon. Member for Barnstaple to withdraw his Motion.
MR. STANLEY WILSON: Why was it put down at all?

WOMEN'S FRANCHISE.
*MR. LEIF JONESdrew attention to a point of procedure and asked for Mr. Speaker's ruling upon a matter in which the rights of Members to bring forward Motions were concerned. The hon. Member for Bosworth on 13th March drew first place in the ballot, and gave notice of his intention on Wednesday next to submit for discussion a Motion for the enfranchisement of women. Since that date the hon. Member for the Loughborough Division had given notice of his intention to present to-morrow a Bill to confer the franchise on adult men and women. Under the new rules of procedure there was no power to object to the presentation of a Bill, and he presumed a date for Second Reading would be fixed. He wished to ask whether the presentation of the Bill would prevent discussion of the Motion his hon. friend proposed to introduce; secondly, whether there was any record of the presentation of a Bill blocking a Motion for which priority had been secured by ballot; thirdly, whether, if the practice became general, Members might not be deprived of the right, intended to be conferred on them by success in the ballot, of bringing any subject before the House, seeing that any other Member to whom the subject was distasteful could prevent the discussion by introducing a dummy Bill; and whether the Speaker could suggest means whereby the rights of Members could be safeguarded.
*MR. SPEAKER: My attention has been called to this matter, and I have to say in answer to the first Question which the hon. Member for the Appleby Division has put to me that, if the hon. Member for Loughborough does intro-
1526
duce the Bill referred to to-morrow and should thereafter fix a particular date for the Second Reading, in my judgment that would prevent the discussion of the Motion given notice of by the hon. Member for Bosworth. In his second Question the hon. Member for Appleby asks if any previous case of this kind has occurred, and to this I have to say that I am not aware of any exact parallel. Under the old system a Member had to obtain the leave of the House to introduce a Bill, and the House itself would decide upon that question, but under the new rule for the presentation of Bills the House has no option. I cannot help thinking that when the new rule was passed such a case as has now occurred may possibly have been overlooked. I do not know with what motive the hon. Member for Loughborough has given notice of his Bill. I am not entitled, nor do I wish to attribute any motive to him in so doing; but I certainly cannot help regretting that his action, if taken, will have the effect I have indicated. It seems to me an infringement, or it may become an infringement, of the right of an hon. Member to bring forward a Motion; for any Member if he wishes to burke a Motion may give notice of a Bill and thereby prevent a Motion from coming on. I will do anything in my power to prevail on the hon. Member for Loughborough not to exercise his right in this respect. As to the last Question put to me, whether there are any means of preserving the right of a Member who has been successful in the ballot, I do not know of any means except those of "peaceful persuasion."
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether, even under the old rule, there would be any means of avoiding the difficulty except by rejecting the Motion for the First Reading.
*MR. SPEAKER: That would be the only means; the House might take into consideration the fact that by passing the First Reading the opportunity for the Motion would be destroyed.

RAILWAY (CONTRACTS) BILL.
Report, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 96.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 96.]
Bill to be considered upon Friday the 14th June.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
First Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SMALL HOLDINGS BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Friday the 17th May read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
NEW BILLS.
  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  "To amend the Railways Regulation Act, 1840 to 1893," presented by Mr. Timothy Davies; supported by Mr. Arthur Allen, Dr. Rutherford, Mr. Lyulph Stanley, and Mr. Steadman; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
RAILWAYS, MINES, CANALS, ETC., BILL.
"To Provide for the nationalisation of Railways, Mines, Canals, and Tramways," presented by Mr. Thorne; supported by Mr. Snowden, Mr. O'Grady Mr. Summerbell, Mr. Steadman, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Gill, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Barnes; to be read a second time upon Friday 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
EIGHT HOURS BILL.
"To restrict the Hours of Labour in all trades and industries to Eight per day," presented by Mr. Thorne; supported by Mr. Jowett, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Summerbell, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Wilkie; to be read a second time upon Friday 12th April, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
"To amend section seventy-eight of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, with
1528
respect to the deduction of the space occupied by Propelling Power in ascertaining the Tonnage of a ship," presented by Mr. Lloyd-George; to be read a second time upon Monday 8th April, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY BILL.
"To amend the Law relating Public Rights of Ways," presented by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald; supported by Mr. Cheetham, Mr. Eugene Wason, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Hills, Mr. Abel Thomas, Mr. William Redmond, and Mr. Arthur Henderson; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND).
The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Thomas Shaw,): I ask leave to introduce a Bill to regulate and amend the laws and practice relating to the civil procedure on Sheriff Courts in Scotland and for other purposes. These courts are substantially equivalent to the county court system in England. This Bill has been necessitated by the complexity of legislation on the subject for many years past. There are no fewer than five statutes on the subject, containing many provisions which overlap and in some respects conflict one with another. The need for consolidation and regulation is made perfectly manifest by the report of the Departmental Committee which reported on the subject in 1904. I have availed myself to the fullest extent of the labours of that Committee, and also of the labours of other professional bodies which have been agitating the subject for several years past. The Scottish Members will be aware that in 1867 there was established a Debts Recovery Court. That has never been a satisfactory institution, and we propose under this Bill to abolish it. In lieu of it, however, there are certain other provisions in the Bill which will cover the ground in a more effective manner. My second observation is with regard to one of the most useful courts in Scotland—humble though it be—called the Small Debt Court. Upon that court the Departmental Committee reported that there was a strong consensus of opinion in favour of its utility and

1529
Popularity "in cases involving small sums". The Report stated—
"Litigants any its means able to obtain a decision with great expedition, and at a very small cost. It is essentially the poor man's court, and has, from his point of view, very great advantages."
I have taken advantage of the recommendations of the Committee's report, and I have, with the approbation of the public and professional bodies, raised the limit of the jurisdiction from £12 to,£20, to be sued for at the cost of a few shillings. In the third place, I fear have made a large invasion into the right of appeal in the Supreme Courts in Scotland. As the House is aware, the cost of litigation in Scotland is in many cases altogether out of proportion to the sum sued for. I made an effort last year in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act to remedy that grievance, and I now make a second effort under this Bill. I have raised the limit of a possible appeal from the Sheriff Court from £25 to £50, and up to that sum appeals will be altogether excluded, except upon special and particular reserved points of law. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Sheriff Court, then, I propose to extend and amend it very largely by enabling the Sheriff to dispose of cases of separation and aliment, control and custody of children, and so on, as recommended by the Committee. I have to make another explanation to the House, which is somewhat of a personal character. The House will remember I took some share in the discussion of the Workmen's Compensation Act of last year, and introduced amending provisions for the purpose of allowing actions brought under the Employers' Liability Act, or, alternatively, at common law, in the Sheriff Court to be kept there, and finally decided there. An objection was raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs and also by some Labour Members, that thereby jury trials in the Supreme Court were abolished, and that no jury trial was established, as in the County Court in England. I made no pledge on the subject at that time, but I said that I would thoroughly consider the whole question. I have done so, and I have now to announce to the House that I propose to institute, as in England, a system of jury trials in the Sheriff Courts. The jury is constituted in a simple way. The jurymen are paid the
1530
usual small fee, and the whole proceedings are made optional, as in England, upon the choice of the litigants. In many cases in England the parties do not choose juries, being satisfied with the County Court Judge. I have left the same option to operate in Scotland and I am hopeful that that improvment will do away with the last shred of regret as to loss of the jury system applicable to these comparatively small cases. The legal costs will thereby be reduced to about a seventh of their normal amount under the system prior to last year. We have been encumbered with these Acts of Parliament in Scotland in this way, that the whole procedure, which ought to be of an elastic character, has been put into clauses of Acts of Parliament. I propose to undo the whole of that system and place the whole body of Sheriff Court procedure in a schedule to the Act so as to make a long catalogue of the ordinary acts of process in the Sheriff Court. The schedule will be amended by the process known in Scotland as Acts of Sederunt. In that way progress and development on the lines of this statute will be greatly facilitated. The statute is long, but it is nothing in comparison to the labyrinth of legislative provisions which exist at present. The Bill is substantially a code for the whole Scottish Sheriff Court civil procedure, and I ask the House to permit me to introduce it.
Motion made, and Question "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate and amend the Laws and practice relating to the civil procedure in Sheriff Courts in Scotland, and for other purposes"—put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To regulate and amend the Laws and practice relating to the civil procedure in Sheriff Courts m Scotland; and for other purposes," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 15th April, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE.)
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20th March], "(1)

1531
When a Bill has been read a second time it shall stand committed to one of the Standing Committees, unless the House, on Motion to be decided without amendment or debate, otherwise order. But this Order shall not apply to (a) Bills for imposing taxes, or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills; or (b) Bills for confirming Provisional Orders. (2) The House may, on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill, commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a Committee of the whole House in respect of other provisions. If such a Motion is opposed the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from the Member who opposes the Motion, shall without further debate put the Question thereon."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
Question again proposed.
LORD R. CECILsaid that when the business of the House was interrupted last Wednesday, he was endeavouring to state some of the objections he felt towards the Motion. He had shortly stated why he thought the most important part of the business of the House was not so much its legislative as its deliberative business. The most favourable opportunity of doing their best was when the whole House sat in Committee for deliberative purposes. The Government's proposal, however, would destroy that opportunity, and set up a wholly inadequate substitute. He ventured to think that only Gentlemen who had not been very long in the House would believe that this new rule would not add to the labours of Members. It would add to them, because though there would be no diminution of the evening sittings, there would be an increase in the morning sittings. But if it were true that a Standing Committee sitting at 11.30 would free hon. Members from some of the sittings of the House, none the less would such a proceeding be intolerable to those engaged in professional and commercial pursuits. If practically every Bill was to be sent to a Standing Committee, and if they were to sit for a considerable portion of the session, the result would be to dismiss from the House
1532
all those Members who depended on commercial or professional pursuits for their livelihood. The House would be composed of the leisured classes and those who made politics their profession. Such a thing might recommend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite, as it would tend to payment of Members, which payment would have to be sufficiently high to attract the best men; but it was a matter which would require most careful consideration. It was a noticeable fact that when the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Scottish Committee as part of his general scheme, he made no mention of England. It did not appear to him necessary to consider England or English rights. He (Lord R. Cecil) opposed the proposal to set up a Scottish Committee, not only because he thought it would be unfair, but because he believed the scheme was constitutionally unsound and that it misconceived the true representative character of the Members of that House. He did not admit that a Member represented only the constituency which sent him there. True, he represented the majority of the opinions of that constituency, but beyond that he represented a fraction not only of this country, but of the whole Empire. It was on that theory that our representative system was built up, and upon that theory it must always rest. He denied that those who represented Scottish constituencies were pre-eminently qualified to discuss Scottish questions. The whole merit of the House of Commons was that it was a House composed of a great many gentlemen who had no special qualification to discuss any particular subject, but who were qualified to discuss all subjects. To take a section of the House which had special private and personal interests in the subject of legislation submitted to it, and to confine the discussion to those Members, was really to weaken the power of discussion in that House. These objections to the details of the scheme were not, however, vital. The vital objection to the scheme as a whole might be condensed into the one word "futility." The hon. and learned Member for Waterford was abundantly justified in saying that this scheme, like all other schemes, was brought forward by its author with the object

1533
of restoring the vitality of the House, but that it would do nothing of the sort. The scheme was totally misconceived, because it did not take into account the disease which it proposed to remedy. He did not deny that the House of Commons was in a difficult position. It did not command the same confidence in the country that it commanded in the past. The disease from which it suffered no one would have any difficulty in diagnosing. It was simply that there were too many hon. Members who took an active interest in the business of legislation, and who desired to address the House, and to address it at great length. On the Ministerial side it was called obstruction; on the Opposition side, activity. If any attempt was to be made to cure that disease the symptoms must be recognised. Various cures had been suggested. That of the hon. Member for Waterford pointed to Home Rule all round. That might be compared to the cure of suicide in order to avoid death. It meant the destruction of that House altogether. It reminded him of the old story in "Pickwick," of the man who shot himself after eating a large number of crumpets, in order to prove that his doctor was wrong, and that they would not kill him. Another cure was that they should have more stringent rules of procedure. It was possible, of course, to have rules so stringent as to destroy debate altogether, but the remedy would also destroy the House of Commons. Nor did he think the present Government would have the courage to propose it. They would never go to the country and say their policy was to destroy the House of Lords and to muzzle the House of Commons. But he thought all these remedies missed the true cause of the disease, which was that the debates had become to a large extent unreal. Although nominally addressed to move opinion and to gain votes, it was perfectly well known that although they might move opinion they certainly did not affect votes. The real evil was the rigidity of the present Party system. That was the evil which all sides of the House would have to consider and to see if it was possible in the conduct of a debate to avoid repetition and use only the most cogent argument. If that were possible it might affect votes, but if it was quite apparent that no such result would be
1534
attained, then they might be driven by a counsel of despair to continue repeating arguments at great length. There was only one other alternative, if there was no relaxation of Party discipline within a measurable time, and that was that they should leave the present Party system and proceed to a system of groups, which would make a very material difference in the methods of their debates. That would restore reality to their discussions, and make it worth while for every Member to take care to put his argument in a compressed form. Until that fact was impressed on hon. Members none of these miserable little remedies of setting up a Committee here and a Committee there would avail. He did not believe that any sensible man believed that the rule now proposed would make any difference, except that it would diminish that stage of a Bill in which the best work was done by the House.
MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he was a Member of the House when the previous Scottish Committee was set up, and he could assure the House that that Committee did really good work, and it was hoped at that time that the Committee would be permanent. The noble Lord had denied that Scotsmen were pre-eminently qualified to settle Scottish business; but if they were not, who were? Those who represented Scotland were quite capable of dealing with their own business. There were Englishmen representing Scottish constituencies, and there were Scotsmen representing English constituencies. The appointment of four Grand Committees would, to a certain extent, relieve the very much overcrowded House. If they could not adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, at any rate a Scottish Grand Committee had been very successful before. Some of them would like to see the new Scottish Grand Committee entirely composed of Scottish Members; but for himself, being what was described as half English, he had no objection to seeing fifteen Members from England added. He would be very glad to have the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone among them, for doubtless they would then proceed with greater rapidity. He hoped they

1535
would come to a decision on the matter before Easter, and that such Bills as the Scottish Education Bill and the Small Land Holders Bill would be sent to the Scottish Grand Committee. It was said that the latter Bill was so very important that it might be applied to England. Well, they did not oppose its being applied to England. But they proposed to get the Bill for Scotland first, and leave the other to follow. He sincerely hoped that these four Grand Committees would be set up, one to deal exclusively with Scottish affairs. It would be of advantage to the House, and especially of advantage to Scotland, in which he was more deeply interested than in England. It was essentially to the advantage of Scotland that Scottish measures should be thoroughly thrashed out in a Grand Committee upstairs.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Prime Minister was not altogether to be congratulated on the amount of support which his proposals had received up to the present time; and he did not think that he hon. Member who had just sat down had helped the case, because he had frankly indicated that, while he entertained great hopes in regard to these new Resolutions, he preferred that of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. The hon. Member must be very sanguine to indulge in such rash hopes in regard to these Resolutions, considering, whatever might be said of them, that they were exactly the reverse of the suggestions made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and, as indicated by him, were not in the direction likely to lead to devolution of the business of the House. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that he had remedies of his own which he would have been glad to see adopted; and, like him, he had himself, frequently in private discussions with hon. Members opposite, suggested his right hon. friend's plan as the best way to secure a better division of Parliamentary business and a more rapid performance of Parliamentary work. He was bound to say that he had never heard from anyone on the other side of the House the suggestion now to be found in these Resolutions, that work which properly
1536
belonged to the House should be sent to a series of Committees upstairs. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy advocate the remedy which they had suggested, but he had never heard him suggest that the remedy should take the form of Grand Committees, by which the work should be done. His right hon. friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would like to see a business Committee appointed, one of whose duties would be to deal with the closure by compartments system. He believed that was the natural and proper corollary of the method of closure by compartments. If that proposal were adopted, he believed that it would not only immensely shorten the period of debates, but, almost of necessity, remove the feeling of friction and soreness which arose when the method was adopted by the Government. It would shorten debates for this reason—that it too frequently happened that debates in Committee were allowed to. go on for a very considerable time before the Government made up their minds that the time had arrived for closure by compartments. It followed that the greater part of the earlier time taken up by the debate was wasted, and that an immense amount of the discussion was upon portions of the Bill which were not of the same interest as later portions, and then, when closure by compartments was applied, annoyance was naturally caused by the insufficient time given to the more important points of the measure under discussion. If the suggestion made by his right hon. friend were adopted, it would not only economise time, but would remove the feeling of bitterness which was sometimes aroused under existing conditions, and would do a great deal more than these Resolutions were likely to do to facilitate the discharge of the business of the House. But he went still further, because it would be possible for such a Committee as his right hon. friend suggested to decide which Bills should remain in the House, and which should go to a Committee upstairs. The right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division had said of him that he would not be able adversely to criticise the business done by the Grand Committees, especially

1537
when that business was properly conducted by those who presided, and by those who were responsible for the Bill under discussion. Certainly, he had had considerable experience of the work in Grand Committees, and either as Minister in charge of Bills, or as a private Member, he had probably sat on more Grand Committees than most Members of the House. If Bills were of 1he right kind, and if the Committee was kept properly in hand, he believed they could not possibly have a more businesslike or a more satisfactory tribunal for the work. But it all depended upon those two conditions, and one of those conditions would be rendered impossible if the present proposals were adopted. The, right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division had told them that there was to be found in support of those proposals a wonderful array of authority, and he had quoted authorities going back to a distant time. It had more than once occurred that hon. Members opposite, when authorities going far back were cited, had looked with some contempt on those musty records. If the right hon. Gentleman was right, as he undoubtedly was, in regard to the array of authority in support of these proposals, on the other hand, they who were opposed to them believing that if carried they would destroy the authority and power of the House, and involve a complete revolution of the House of Commons, could find in support of their view authority, not drawn from the distant past, but from comparatively recent times, from Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench. In the debate on the Aliens Bill, which was in charge of his right hon. friend the ex-Home Secretary, there was hardly a man on that bench, from the Prime Minister downwards, who did not adopt, in unmistakable terms, the views which the Opposition were at present urging. They admitted that Grand Committees were admirable institutions for the discharge of certain work, but contended that their success was almost entirely dependent on the kind of Bills sent up to them. Before passing to the Resolutions he wanted to say a word or two about the amendments of the existing system, which, be believed, would give the House more time and facilitate its work. He believed that they might do
1538
great good by largely extending the Provisional Order system. There was a kind of legislation which sometimes led, for purely local reasons, to prolonged debate, and that invariably occurred in cases which might be dealt with if the Provisional Order system were extended to private Bills. There appeared in private Bills provisions which, if they had been tested and examined as were Provisional Orders, would have been rigidly excluded. His right hon. friend had spoken with reference to the Scottish Grand Committee. Scotland had been specially favoured in the arrangements made by the House, Scotland had obtained a system of procedure for her private Bills devised by the late Government, of which he had the honour to be a Member. That plan had worked with complete success, and it might with enormous advantage be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom. He was not sure whether it would not be possible, with perfect safety to the constitutional rights of Parliament, for that tribunal to do even more work than at present. But all these things found no place in the Prime Minister's proposals. What they were now called upon to consider was a radical change in the method of doing the work of the House. They were asked to send to Grand Committees Bills introduced by the Government, and there was a very slight limitation as to what Bills should go upstairs—a limitation so small that he did not think it necessary to refer to it. All the great Bills which the Government introduced, if these Resolutions were adopted, would pass from the House to the Committee stage upstairs. [No."] Yes, they would.
Sir HENRY FOWLER: We do not say that all Bills shall be sent. The House has got its veto.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not quite follow. The House had its veto; would the right hon. Gentleman deny that if the proposal of the Prime Minister were adopted, it would place in the hands of the Government of the day power to send upstairs all Bills except those excluded by the Order.
Sir HENRY FOWLER: That is the power that it has at the present time.
MR. WALTER LONG: denied that that was so. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite fair when he said the House had the power of veto. If they had that power now, why should this Standing Order be proposed? The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that no Government had even attempted to send upstairs to Grand Committees Bills of the first importance containing matters in which they were controversially concerned. Therefore, it was not quite correct to say that the Government had that power now. It seemed to him, from their Resolutions, that the intention of the Government was that when a Bill had been read a second time, unless it came within the two subsections, it should pass to a Grand Committee upstairs if the House did not decide otherwise. If there was power to send all Bills to the Grand Committees upstairs, one saw that a temptation was offered which no Government was likely to be able to resist; nor was it likely that the majority who supported the Government, knowing that they had the power to send Bills upstairs, and knowing the demand made upon the time of Parliament and upon their own time, would fail in aiding the Government, and the result would be that all those Bills which had hitherto been considered in the House of Commons would be sent to the Grand Committees upstairs. The Prime Minister the other day had dealt with the figures given by the Leader of the Opposition before the Committee which inquired into this subject. His right hon. friend had taken the number of Members of the House, and the number of Grand Committees and Select Committees etc., and the Prime Minister had sought to show that his right hon. friend had exaggerated the demand made upon the time of Members. He ventured to say that his right hon. friend had not exaggerated at all. The Prime Minister had forgotten altogether to exclude from his calculations the large body of Members, he believed over 100, who belonged to the Bar, and many of whom could not attend their professional duties in the Courts if they had to attend the proposed Committees. Then there were
1540
in the House business men who were certainly not the least valuable or capable Members of that assembly. How was it possible for them to be in attendance on the Grand Committee in the morning and in the House in the afternoon and evening, if they were to give the smallest attention to their own affairs? Then there were private Members, for whom an hon. Gentleman opposite had pleaded with eloquence and force the other evening, when he said that many of them had important and necessary work of their own, which they could not neglect; and how would it be possible for them to attend Grand Committees in the morning, and the House in the afternoon and evening, and at the same time attend to their own duties as ordinary citizens? It was impossible. He himself had no calls of that nature on his time, but he had, to the best of his ability, been a hard working Member of the House of Commons for nearly thirty years, and he could safely say that if a man did his duty by the work of the House, if he tried to make himself familiar with what was going on in the country, he would find enough to occupy his time from morning to evening. It would be extremely difficult for him to do that work efficiently, if in addition he had to be in Committee from half-past eleven in the morning, and in the House later in the day. He had himself sat on Select Committees and private Bill Committees which had lasted four weeks; and he had the honour at one time of being the Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee which sat into July. The Prime Minister and others had forgotten, he thought, the time at which very important work would have to be considered in Grand Committee. They talked as if the work could be spread over the whole session and 600 Members would be available for work to be divided up amongst them, from the meeting of Parliament in February to the rising of Parliament in August. They were proposing that Bills of importance, great controversial measures, should be sent to Committees upstairs. When would those measures be available for Committees upstairs; how many had they sent to the Committees already in existence? How many Bills

1541
were ready to go to the Select Committees? How many Select Committees had been appointed? The right hon. Gentleman must know that the time when it was almost impossible to get Members to serve on these various Committees was not March or April when the amount of Committee work was comparatively small, but in May and June when the work was excessively heavy, and Committees sat from day to day. He had himself sat five days in the week, and had had to ask the leave of the House to sit. In no other way could they get through the work; and some of them were serving on two Committees at the same time, besides being on the Grand Committee. Was it possible to add the fresh burden which the Government proposed, and even hope to get for the consideration of Parliamentary work that calm frame of mind and that strength of body which were necessary if the work was to be well done? He ventured to say that the proposal was absolutely impossible. The hon. Member who spoke the other day on behalf of the Committee of Selection based his conclusions largely on the present condition of the House. He thought the hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the present House was largely composed of new Members. Many of them were young in Parliamentary age, and young in experience of Parliamentary work. Let them wait until they had had three or four weeks experience in summer of a hot Committee room; until they were wanted to form a quorum on another committee; until they had had six weeks of a keenly contested Bill, with a long array of counsel—all in the hot days, and all to be done before they were called upon to attend in the House for the afternoon and evening. Any Member who had not been on a Committee could see what was happening when he came down to the House in the afternoon. What did he see? He saw Member after Member walking towards him from the House. If he asked why they were going when the House was just beginning, the answer was that they had been on a Committee since eleven o'clock, that they were tired to death, and that they must go away and get some fresh air. Yet they were going
1542
to ask Members to sit on four Grand Committees instead of two, in addition to their work in the House, and they imagined that in that way they were going not only to promote business, but enhance the harmony of their proceedings. Not only would Members be jaded physically, but it was not in the least probable that they would come to the consideration of important business with that mental vigour which was so necessary if the discussions were to be productive of really valuable legislation. The right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division had forgotten one part of the question which he would like the House to consider. He was speaking as one who had served for a great many years in public departments. The one advantage which they derived from Grand Committees was the presence not only of members of the Government, but of permanent officials at the right hand of Ministers ready to be consulted at any moment with a view to assisting the Committee to arrive at a decision in regard to Amendments. Those permanent officials had a hard task already to get through the work of their Departments. Many of them were heavily overworked, and were unable to leave their offices until late at night. Yet they were to be called upon in the morning when the work of the Department was at its greatest pressure, and instead of having two sets of these permanent officials for Grand Committees they would require four for Committees which would sit for weeks together. Was that a way to avoid arrears of departmental work? He ventured to say that if the system were adopted it would strike a heavy blow at the administration of the various Departments, which would very soon be felt in the House, whatever other results might flow from these Resolutions. Let them take the Local Government Board, the Home Office, and the Board of Trade. It frequently happened that they had two or three Bills, produced by the heads of those departments, which they desired to have properly discussed, and which would employ the permanent officials, who were also to attend the Grand Committees. The proposal was practically impossible. If that were true of ordinary Members of Parliament and of permanent officials, how much more true would it be of the Law Officers of the

1543
Crown. Hardly a Bill of great importance went upstairs which did not require the presence of the Law Officers. On the Land Tenure Bill in Grand Committee last year it was absolutely impossible to secure the attendance of a Law Officer. The Attorney-General was absent through illness, and the Solicitor-General had other demands upon him. When the Bill came down to the House, how different was the effect. The Law Officer was present, and he was bound to admit that the arguments and criticisms which had been offered in Committee were well founded. Yet they were going to introduce a system for the consideration of Bills in Committee when they knew, from their experience of the Land Tenure Bill, that such consideration could not be complete, and they were going to trust to a subsequent stage to correct all mistakes made upstairs. If that was the foundation of the proposal, all he could say was that it rested on a very insecure basis indeed. His noble friend had just now expressed the view that the real remedy lay in some relaxation of the Party system. In Grand Committee they found a complete relaxation of the Party system, and the present Government, he thought, would not be quite so confident in making these proposals if it was not for the fact that they had got so large a majority behind them that they could to a large extent disregard considerations which a Government with a smaller majority would be bound to bear in mind. But even this Government with its overwhelming majority had experience of the difficulty of getting Bills through Grand Committee. He had spoken of the Land Tenure Bill. It was not the fault of the Member of the Government representing the Agricultural Department that changes were made in it upstairs; the Grand Committee decided against him, and what was the result? When the Bill came downstairs the Government had to employ all their force to alter the measure. Surely the Government were not going to send their important Bills to Committees upstairs, knowing that the work would have to be done again on Report! If they did they would double or treble the work which had to be done on the Report stage. Anybody who was familiar with the way in which work was done in
1544
the House must know perfectly well how frequently it happened in Committee on a Bill that some point suddenly arose which had not been foreseen by the Minister in charge or by the Government. It produced a great deal of feeling in the House of Commons, and on the part of the supporters of the Government, and of the particular measure. All of a sudden it became evident that unless something was done there would be a risk of the Bill being defeated. What happened? The Minister in charge of the Bill did his best, and there was a hurried consultation, frequently on the front bench, but sometimes in the room of the Leader of the House. The Minister came back to the House, and speaking with the authority which he could only possess after consulting his colleagues, intimated the decision at which the Government had arrived. The announcement having been made the Government stood or fell by it. How was that going to be done when a Bill was before the Grand Committees? The Minister in charge could not consult his colleagues. If he were beaten in the Grand Committee were the Government going to accept that defeat as if it had occurred in the House? Even with this Government, strong as it was, such a case had occurred twice in different forms. It occurred in connection with the Land Tenure Bill when a certain decision was announced. Great consternation arose, and a Cabinet Minister was put up to drive home the arguments and to do his best to smooth the troubled waters. That was not sufficient, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then the Leader of the House, was sent for, and the right hon. Gentleman announced definitely that the Government had considered the question in all its bearings, and called upon the supporters of the Government to support the decision at which they had arrived. That could not be done in Grand Committee. Another case which proved the importance of this point arose on the Workmen's Compensation Bill. The Minister in charge of the Bill refused to accept an Amendment to include domestic servants. A large number of Members took exception to that course and determined that they should be included. The head of the Government afterwards came to the

1545
House, threw over his colleagues, and agreed to accept the Amendment as the result of the expression of opinion which had taken place. If controversial legislation of that kind was sent to the Grand Committees, such cases were certain to arise. Were they going to alter the present system and say that there was to be no consultation, and that all the points were to be considered on Report after the Cabinet had been consulted? If that was the case it meant that the machinery would be wholly insufficient for the purpose to which they were applying it. He thought they ought to know what steps the Government proposed to take in order to meet the particular case which he had described, and also whether the Government, having put forth all their strength in the Grand Committee, would accept a defeat there in the same way as if it had occurred on the floor of the House. If not, they were making one of the greatest changes that had ever been made in the procedure of the House. Everybody knew that on the Committee stage difficulties arose which led to complete changes in a Bill. Those alterations, whether good or bad, were often of a drastic character, but in a Grand Committee upstairs there would not be the same opportunities for freedom of discussion. No communication had been made regarding what the Government proposed to do as to giving publicity to the proceedings upstairs. He was not sure but that the Government would be compelled to adopt some means of rendering what took place in the Grand Committees as fully open to the public as the proceedings in the House itself. He was not quite sure whether the record of the Grand Committees would remain as good as it was at present. He was not sure that, once it became known that speeches delivered upstairs would be reported fully with all the glories which were supposed by some people to attend the publication of their utterances, the opinion which his hon. friends opposite entertained in regard to the work hitherto done by the Grand Committees would remain the same; but if that change was to be made it would be little short of a scandal if important proceedings in Committee which ought to be in the possession of those outside the House, who were
1546
interested in what went on there, were not reported. The existing conditions under which the work was done were, he thought, quite sufficient for the kind of work to be performed. His right hon. friend the Member for the Rushcliffe Division, who spoke with authority on this subject, said in 1904 that Parliament must be very careful indeed as to the kind of Bills which were sent to the Committees, and that the Aliens Bill was an unsuitable one to be sent to a Grand Committee.
*MR. ELLIS:I was speaking of the Committees as they stood with their procedure at that time. The procedure in the Committees has been altered.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he understood from what his right hon. friend had now said that the whole merit of these proposals was to be found, not in the transfer of business, not in devolution, not in anything of that kind, but in the conferring upon the Chairman of the Grand Committees of the power to apply the closure.
*MR. ELLISsaid that was not his opinion at all.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that one of the proposed changes was to have four instead of two Grand Committees, and the other was to enable the Chairman of the Grand Committee to apply the closure. There was no other change in the procedure or constitution of the Committees. The Prime Minister had expressed himself in favour of Bills being discussed with the greatest publicity and in the fullest way. The right hon. Gentleman had also expressed the opinion that every Member, whether he was a trade Member or a lawyer, should have an opportunity of expressing his opinion on measures. That was the opinion which the Members of the Opposition held now. This was not only the greatest change which had ever been made in the procedure of the House, but it deprived Members of the opportunity of hearing, if they chose, the debate on a Bill. A Member might not desire to take part in a debate, but he had a right to know what was going on. If all these Bills were to be referred to the various Standing Committees, not only lawyers

1547
but others would be prevented from taking part in the debates. He knew that lawyers were not the most popular Members of that assembly, but he believed that they would get on very badly without them. In the Committee stage they brought to the consideration of Bills trained minds and experience which they had gathered over long periods of years. They would not be able to attend the sittings of the Grand Committees at 11 o'clock in the forenoon and remain in attendance at the House during the afternoon and evening. The proposed change was not only revolutionary but thoroughly bad in its character, being destructive of what had hitherto been one of the best parts of the work of Parliament. He did not believe it would give more time or facilitate the progress of business. It would lead to prolonged debates on the Report stage; the Report stage would be necessarily protracted, for they would have to fill up the blanks which were always left when they were discussing big measures in Committee. They would have to correct the blunders which were made in Committee upstairs. There was room for considerable improvement in procedure, but be believed the proposals now made would deprive large bodies of private Members of the opportunity of taking part in the debates on Bills and conceal from the general public some of the most important work Parliament had to do.
THE CHANCELLOR OR THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Sir Henry Fowler,)said that the right hon. Gentleman had drawn a very lurid description of what was going to happen in the future. He had given two illustrations as to the working of the system, but they were drawn from two rather controversial Bills which were before the House during the last session of Parliament, and which were sent to Grand Committees; but the most valuable results were obtained on the Report stage in the House.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was arguing, not in respect of the two Bills which had been sent to Grand Committees, but in respect of other greater measures which might be sent to Grand Committees.
Sir HENRY FOWLERsaid that the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, had ignored the history of the question. According to the views of the right hon. Gentleman this was an entirely novel method of procedure, and there was no authority for it. As a matter of fact, however, the subject had been discussed and considered by eminent authorities on procedure, of different shades of political opinion, and all having special claims on the consideration of the House. He referred to the Hartington Committee. But long before the appointment of that Committee Sir Erskine May raised the question of Grand Committees in 1854; next there were the Committees of Sir John Pakington, Sir James Graham, Sir Stafford Northcote, and Lord Hartington's Committee in 1886. The last-named Committee consisted of thirty-three able and experienced Members, men who had been Cabinet Ministers, great Party leaders, men who were proud of the House of Commons and who were held in deservedly high respect by the House. That Committee, with three dissentients, recommended the system which was practically that of the Government. The Members included Sir M. Hicks Beach, Mr. Bright, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Dillwyn, Sir J. Fergusson, Sir W. Hart Dyke, Sir J. Gorst, Mr. Goschen, Sir W. Harcourt, Mr. Healy, Sir John Mowbray, Mr. Raikes, Mr. W. H. Smith, Mr. Stanhope, and Mr. Whitbread, and several other distinguished men. They could not cast the opinion of all these men behind them and say that they did not know what they were talking about. The Committee sat for three months, was always fully attended, and most of the divisions showed very large majorities. The first Resolution of the Committee proposed—
"That every public Bill, after the second reading, except a Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means, or a Bill for the confirmation of any Provisional Order, unless the House shall otherwise order, shall be referred to a Standing Committee of this House."
The division on that vital question was in the proportion of twenty-one to five, and that twenty-one included nearly every one of the most distinguished and competent Members of the House. The Government scheme was based practically on the recommendations of that Committee.

1549
They had further had advantage of the advice of many competent gentlemen—notably the present Leader of the Opposition, who gave the Committee most valuable assistance. The right hon. Gentlemen seemed to imagine that the Government intended that every Bill should go upstairs. But the words of the Prime Minister were—
"I can assure you that this is the spirit and intention of the Government in proposing this rule: they have no intention of sending any Bill upstairs to which there would be any reasonable objection."
It was sometimes asked, "Why not appoint an independent business committee?" The House would not find the Government indisposed to entertain that suggestion. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham raised the question many years ago, and it had been suggested that the House should follow the example of the United States Congress and appoint a body similar to their Rules Committee. But the Rules Committee of Congress possessed a power which he should be sorry to see used by any Committee of the House of Commons, for they settled everything as to the precedence and procedure in that Assembly. There was a great deal to be said, however, for an independent authority to settle procedure in the various stages of Bills. The great difficulty would be to fix on the body that should select the Committee and secure their independence and see that minorities were duly represented. The "guillotine" was hateful, but it was a necessity that the Government should possess it, and should use it if they meant to transact business. The system of Grand Committees had been in use for seventeen years, and he thought that the Grand Committees had done remarkably good work; he did not think there had been that incompetence and blundering which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had just described.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he entirely shared the views of the right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division as to the good work which the Grand Committees had done.
Sir HENRY FOWLERsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say
1550
that the Grand Committees had been rather ineffective bodies. He would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition say how he proposed to cope with the difficulties of passing legislation by means of the present machinery of the House. This proposal was brought forward in the interest of the House, and he himself felt as strongly as any Member that the manner in which public time was wasted was not creditable to them. He did not think that the demand upon the time of public men in the House was very excessive, or that a pedestrian who crossed over Westminster Bridge of an afternoon and saw how hon. Members were engaged on a certain spot would have any idea that a Member of the House of Commons was usually over-worked either in the House or upstairs. They had the very great advantage that when they did not want to hear a man they could go out, and it was a privilege of which Members of the House frequently availed themselves. The extra Committee which was to be appointed to deal with Scottish business would not only facilitate business, but save the time of Members of the House. Leaving aside heroics, was it not the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Members of the House knew nothing about Scottish politics, and indeed hardly understood the language in which they were expressed? Was it not the fact that every word of Scottish law differed from English law? The two things were quite distinct, and, as he had mentioned, they had Bills which dealt with Scottish affairs purely, notably the Burghs Police Bill. That was dealt with in a Committee upstairs. That Bill, which contained a large number of clauses, was discussed in Committee upstairs and discussed very much better in a Committee mainly consisting of Scottish Members than it could be discussed across the floor of the House in the course of an hour or two where the majority knew nothing about Scottish business. What rational objection could be raised to getting Scottish business done in that way and getting rid of a complaint of the Scottish people that their legislation was pushed aside by English business and that to that extent they were injured? It had been said there was no such provision for England, but English business

1551
prevented everything and no injury was done to England. Could the right hon. Gentleman point out any English business which had been prevented from being accomplished by Scottish votes?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: instanced the Parish Councils Bill in which the majority was largely composed of Scottish and Irish Members against the majority of the English Members present.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid his memory did not go back to the discussions and divisions which took place, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was correct, because the Scottish Members knew they were to have their own Bill the next year and they had it.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was his point—that the majority of English Members voting on the English Bill were out-voted by the minority of English Members voting with the Scottish and Irish. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that the Government of that day never had a majority of more than forty with the Scottish and Irish Members voting with them. It was clear, therefore, that in any Party division on an English Bill the majority must have been made up of Scottish and Irish Members.
Sir HENRY FOWLERsaid that a very large section of the Conservative Party also voted with the Government, so it was by no means clear that the wish of English Members was defeated. At any rate, the present system was working badly, and the House was in a congested state and its machinery was being clogged up and stopped in an immense number of ways. Those arguments which did not appeal to reason, which became the means of obstruction, had greater play in the Committee stage than at any other stage of a measure. In other words, the details of many measures were far better discussed, not in a Committee of the Whole House, but in a Committee consisting of a limited number of Members upstairs. The House itself would under the present proposal reserve to itself the fullest and amplest control. It had
1552
been suggested that the Report stage ought to be limited, as there was a great deal of time wasted upon it, and that no Amendment should be moved at that stage except by a Minister of the Crown or by the Member in charge of the Bill. The Government proposed no limitations of that sort, but, of course, upon that stage no hon. Member could speak twice. He wished that rule could be more widely applied. Of course, this change was tentative, as all such changes must be, but the Government repudiated the idea of applying the rule to any great measure of the session. One hon. Gentleman opposite had said that no Government could carry more than one great measure in a session, and that it would be a monstrous thing to send a measure of that sort upstairs. A measure upon which the power of the Government depended ought not to be sent upstairs, but in the wear and tear of the Parliamentary struggle at present much minor legislation had to be abandoned, because there was not time in which to pass it. The Government wanted to give the House the opportunity of passing such Bills, and proposed to give the Chairman of the Committee upstairs larger powers than he at present possessed. There was nothing startling or revolutionary in these proposals, and he thought the House would be well advised to give them a general assent, with a view of seeing how they would work.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had appealed to the House to conduct the debate upon non-Party lines, and the Prime Minister had made a similar appeal, and he thought the discussion had been carried on on those lines, with a view to seeing if they could not make the machinery of the House work more smoothly in order to get through the business. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the Hartington Committee. That Committee presented a very important Report, which revolutionised the procedure of the House twenty years ago under Mr. Gladstone; and the proposals of the Government were equally revolutionary. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the object of the change was to deal with non-contentious business; but he

1553
would like to ask him what he meant by the words. If there was any reasonable objection to o Bill would it be sent to a Committee upstairs? His great objection was not to the sending up of departmental and uncontentious Bills, but to the sending up of Bills on which there was great contention, and which might lead to friction between the two parties. Where that class of Bill had been sent up the procedure of Grand Committees had not been a success. The objection that the Government might lose control over their Bill was a most important one, because that was a thing that had happened more than once. They lost control over the Workmen's Compensation Bill last year. In the Committee on that Bill they were defeated three times—outvoted by their own side. The eloquent speeches of the Solicitor-General, the Home Secretary, and the Under-Secretary were of no avail, and they were defeated. What was to happen in the future? Were the Government to take their defeats in Committee mom seriously? Were they to resign on defeat or what were they to do? How was the new principle going to act in practice? Could Ministers with their arduous duties in their offices afford to spend their mornings in Grand Committee? He was afraid it would be found that they could not. He thought that it would not be wise to found too great an expectation on the desire of hon. Members to work hard on these Committees, because when a man had served on a Committee from 11.30 to three o'clock, he was not fit to begin work again in the House. He thought the rules ought to be so drawn that a Member could devote his time to the business he took most interest in. It was not fair to expect a man to sit in a Committee all day, and then expect him to work in the House in the evening. Then again the quorum of a Committee was twenty, and it was well known that on many occasions Committees had to wait twenty minutes or half an hour before there was a quorum. Under this new rule were they going to get sufficient Members to form a quorum? It was often difficult enough to do now, but he thought in the future the difficulty would increase. Then as to the Government's power to manage their legislation in Grand Committee. If it happened
1554
that they lost control of a Bill, as was the case in the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and they had to accept Amendments, they had either to abide by the decision of the Committee, or reverse its decision on the Report stage, which would be very much resented by the members of the Committee. He thought the true remedy was to shorten the Report stage, by allowing only Amendments to be moved in regard to alterations which had taken place in Committee, or Amendments moved by the promoters of the Bill. Such a system would much shorten the proceedings in the House, and would make the Report stage what it should be, namely, the maturing stage of a Bill after it had been considered in the Grand Committee. He hoped the Prime Minister, having appealed to the House, to consider this proposal in a non-Party spirit, would accept Amendments which would be moved from the Opposition side of the House with the sole object of improving the Resolution and making more efficient the machinery of the House.
*MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid from what the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this proposal had said it was perfectly apparent that the proposals of the Government were based on the highest constitutional authority. No names had ever been read out in the House that carried more weight than the names of the Hartington Committee, and they made even stronger recommendations than those of the Government. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for South Dublin take so general a view of the work done by Grand Committees, because the right hon. Gentleman himself had taken a very active part in the work of Grand Committees, and there were few, if any, Members of the House who understood the work done there better than the right hon. Gentleman. If it was desired to save time and get rid of Party spirit, and to have practical work done, that should be looked for in a Grand Committee rather than in Committee of the Whole House. What happened in the case of the Workmen's Compensation Bill was exceptional, principally because the members of the Committee were new to their work. On the whole he believed the work done as it was done that morning in a Committee upstairs was certainly done

1555
in less time than it would take in a Committee of the Whole House. The noble Lord the hon. Member for Marylebone, who had referred to the patriotism of England, did not do justice to the weight that English opinion had in the legislation passed for Ireland, and if, in exceptional cases, Irish and Scottish opinion affected the legislation for England, the weight of that opinion was not to be compared with the influence exerted by England over the legislation of Ireland and Scotland. He therefore did not think that English Members, if these rules passed, could grudge Scotland the Committee if it was a success. It would not prevent English Bills being referred to an English Committee. During the twenty years he had been in the House he had taken an interest in Imperial and Scottish legislation, but he confessed he did not take much interest in English, Irish, or Welsh legislation. One of the trials of a private Member was to work on a Committee and in the House afterwards; but a greater trial to him was to wait about the House for something to turn up in which he was interested; and it was because the proposal before the House was to distribute the work better, and to apply Members to work in which they were interested, that he thought it would have a very important effect upon Members in increasing their interest in subjects which came before the House. Older Members could fill up their time when in attendance, but it was a very bad training for the young Member to find himself without work to do, and often to find the time of the House taken up with work in which he himself had no direct interest. It was impossible to suppose that a Member from one division of the United Kingdom could, as a rule, take the same interest in work appertaining to other divisions as he took in matters affecting his own division. The Scottish Committee which it was proposed to set up under these rules was one for which Scottish Members had long asked. At present, for want of some means of attending to the business of Scotland, they were governed really by an administrative bureaucracy who were under very little supervision; and, if Scottish administration and Scottish legislation were brought more directly under the supervision of Scottish repre-
1556
sentatives, they would be able to breathe more life into that administration. English Members should not fail to remember that they were in London, with all their administrative department around them; they could thus obtain a much greater hold of them, and infuse, much more vigour into them, than was possible in the case of Scottish Members, whose departments were situated in Edinburgh. For many years Scottish education, and other details of Scottish business, had never come before the House at all, and in the consideration of Scottish Bills they were told, on a Saturday afternoon or at some other limited period, that they were either to take them or leave them. The Scottish Grand Committee would get them out of that difficulty, and he was heartily grateful to the Government for their proposal. There had been some discussion as to the kind of Bills which should be considered in Committee of the Whole House, and there might also be a question raised with regard to whether all the Bills brought in for Scotland should be referred to that Committee. He agreed that there were Bills which ought not to go upstairs, but ought to be considered in Committee of the Whole House. Although he approved of the Scottish Committee, he would prefer that it should be composed of all Scottish Members, without the addition of Members from other divisions of the United Kingdom. Most Scottish Bills, whether dealing with education or with matters connected with the Church or many other subjects, were far better dealt with by Scottish Members alone. But again there were Bills which ought to be considered in Committee of the Whole House, and he thought there might be some cases in which Bills, brought in even for Scotland, might be better considered by a Committee of representatives of the Whole House than by Scottish Members alone. He referred to such Bills, for instance, as effected great reversals in social and economic policy. Those he thought would be better dealt with by a Grand Committee upstairs, representative of the Whole House—Billsunlikely to be restricted to one division of the United Kingdom. Let them take, for instance, a Bill the principle of which he heartily supported, namely, the taxation of land values. That might be

1557
brought in either for England or for Scotland; but he thought that was a class of measure which could be far better considered in a Committee representative of the Whole House than in a Committee representative of one division of the United Kingdom. A Bill involving large public grants was another class of Bill which should not be considered by a Committee representing any one nationality, as for example the Irish Land Purchase Bill. He was not speaking from the national point of view; he was dealing with the subject from the point of view of public business. He was aware that any one coming from the Celtic fringe would be liable to be under suspicion where any question of nationality might be invoked; at any rate he was dealing with the whole question, and he wanted efficient conduct of Parliamentary business. Then a Bill might be brought in dealing with the affairs of a section of the country with which the Parliamentary representation was hardly competent to deal. For example, a Bill might be brought in dealing with agriculture for Scotland, at a time when the Parliamentary representation was almost entirely urban. In that case he thought the Committee would be strengthened by the presence of such an hon. Member as the representative of South Molton or his hon. friend who represented the tenant farmers of this country, as well as the presence of others versed in the practical affairs of agriculture. Under such conditions Bills of that character would be much better discussed by a Committee representative of the Whole House than by a Committee composed exclusively of Scottish Members. But as he had said, such Bills were exceptional, and for ordinary Scottish Bills he believed it would be better to have the Committee composed entirely of Scottish Members. With that slight exception the proposal would have his most hearty support, and he thought that hon. Members who opposed would find that they would have to discover some alternative method to the conditions under which the work of the House was done at present. As had been pointed out, in foreign Assemblies and at Washington much of the work was done by Committees. At Washington they had an extremely efficient system of Committees by which the work was
1558
carried on. That system was not wholly applicable to us; but no one who had seen that system at work could fail to understand the necessity of supporting such a modified scheme as that which was now proposed. He was certain that there was no country in the world where public business was conducted on a system better calculated to prevent any legislation taking place at all than was the case here; they had been only too long in trying to find a solution of the problem, and therefore he trusted that the very moderate proposals of the Government would be put in force with the least possible delay.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he had very little to say on this question, for, the evidence he gave last year being on record, it was not necessary to repeat at length what he then stated. He wished to say, however, that nothing he had heard said in defence of this proposed Standing Order seemed to him to get rid of any of the objections which on that occasion, before the Select Committee, he had ventured to urge. Right hon. Gentlemen, however, had full right to make what use they could of what they called the principle of authority. But since the finding of the Committee of 1886 an experience of no less than twenty years had shown that even under the existing Standing Orders Committees sat shorter hours than they would have to sit under the proposed new Standing Order; there were at present fewer Committees to be manned; and although there was some kind of discrimination between Bills sent up to such Committees, yet they even now found great difficulty in obtaining a representative and authoritative attendance of Members. He gave before the Committee last year some figures which ought to have been considered sufficiently striking. At all events they showed that on Bills dealing with exceedingly important matters, the divisions by which they were decided had only a small number of Members taking part in them. Sometimes as few as thirty, and seldom more than fifty, Members voted. If they came to think, he thought they would see that that difficulty was not going to be got rid of by this proposal at all. They

1559
were going to have more Committees working, and they were going to send up indiscriminately more Bills to those Committees. Therefore the present difficulty would not only not be got rid of, but to a certain extent it would be aggravated. It was obvious that there were only two ways by which the attendance difficulty could be got over, and neither of those was dealt with in the proposed Standing Order. One was to diminish the number of Members composing the Standing Committees from eighty to sixty, or even fewer. It was obvious, however, that if they diminished the minimum number, they also very seriously diminished the authority of the Grand Committees with the House and with the public outside. The other alternative, and this was the alternative which the Government had not had the courage to adopt, was boldly to say that they were going to have four Committees, and that those four Committees should have power to operate simultaneously on four different Bills at once, by sitting in different rooms during the time of the ordinary evening sittings of the House. The fact that the Government shrank from that showed how dangerous were the logical conclusions by which alone their system could be tested. The difficulty of securing a sufficient attendance arose from the fact that they could not get the busy men who were engaged in professional or mercantile occupations, and he hoped the day would be far distant when the House of Commons would be composed of men who were not wanted anywhere else. The great difficulty they had always had was that if the Bills before them were of so non-controversial a character that they were considered safe to send to a Grand Committee, they did not attract a quorum. On the other hand, in the case of Bills sufficiently controversial to attract a quorum, the procedure of Grand Committee had not been a success. Under the proposed plan he foresaw great loss of time and labour, for, after all, the bottle-neck of the whole system would remain the Report stage in the House itself; because, assuming that the Committees were successful in respect to the actual quantity of their output, the greater would be the diffi-
1560
culty of running the necessary business through the narrow opening it had to pass at the Report. The Scottish Committee, he supposed, would deal with both Government and private Members' Bills and that Government business would have precedence. If that Committee were composed of none but Scottish Members it would be easy to work, under certain circumstances, so that it might run counter to the fundamental principle of the united Parliament, that the prevailing balance of opinion should, as in the whole House, prevail in the Committees for all parts of the area legislated for by the united Parliament. It would be possible for a Radical Scottish Committee to pass Radical measures even in a Conservative Parliament. No answer had yet been given to the question why, if there was to be a Scottish Committee, there should not be also an English Committee. The answer to that question was that with an English Committee the trend of legislation, would be Conservative and Unionist. If this rule became operative, of course all Members of the House would do their best to make it a success in the interests of the House itself. At the same time, he did not think he would have done his duty if he had not, out of his experience, pointed out some of the difficulties which he conceived to be in the way. He thought it would add very greatly to the labours of Members of the professional and mercantile classes at a most inconvenient time of the day.
*MR. PIRIEsaid it had been admitted in speeches made on both sides of the House that there were difficulties in this matter. It was stated by some that the supposed remedy would be the means of lessening the work in the House, but he, on the contrary, believed the work of the House would go on increasing in spite of this temporary palliative. He believed the proposed new procedure would add enormously to the work already placed on Parliament. In view of the difficulties that had been pointed out, he could only hope, not only that the matter would be discussed from a non-Party point of view, but that the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention from that point of view

1561
to the Amendments moved, when they came to be discussed, and let the House decide upon them without regard to any preconceived or partisan ideas. The right hon. Gentleman, when introducing this Motion, took as similes what took place in Continental Legislatures. He would have preferred if the right hon. Gentleman had gone to younger countries. In Australia, for instance, where the total population was less than that of Greater London, there were no less than five legislative Assemblies as well as a central Parliament; in the United States, with a population less than double that of the United Kingdom, there were fifty-three besides the central body of Congress. It was, he thought, upon the line of multiplying the legislative and administrative Assemblies or national councils in this country that the remedy could be found for the atrophy of the House of Commons which had been so universally admitted. With regard to the establishment of an English Committee the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer must have overlooked the fact, when he asked why such a Committee should not be appointed, that the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone had an Amendment on the Paper for the appointment of an English Committee of sixty Members. He himself shared that view, and he would like to see the matter carried to its logical conclusion by the appointment of such a Committee. While he thought that particular care should be given to these recommendations he admitted that he regarded the question of a Scottish Committee as a prelude to a larger scheme of devolution. He hoped this Committee would be merely the forerunner of a Committee which would have power given to it to enable it to sit for a certain portion of the year in Scotland, and take its proper and rightful part in Scottish administration. With regard to the question of whether this Committee should be composed exclusively of Scottish Members, it would, in his opinion, be much easier, when setting up these new bodies, to add more Members to a small Committee than to take away Members from a large one, and he hoped the Government would, at any rate, in the first instance, appoint the Committee as such. It was instructive to contrast the words of Lord
1562
Seafield, the Lord Chancellor of Scotland 200 years ago, who was best remembered by posterity to his lasting discredit by the single sentence—
"There's ane end of ane auld sang;"
and who, in closing the last session of the Scottish Estates that very day the 25th of March, 1707, said—
"The public business of this session being now over, it is full time to put an end to it,"
with the words of the present Lord Chancellor, who, when in this House in 1888, said he thought it would be a very great calamity if a mixed Committee were appointed to discuss Scottish business, and further that he would not for a moment ask for a Committee, or even care to see one, which did not consist exclusively of Scottish Members; and again last week, speaking from the Woolsack, that devolution was as certain to come in this country as the sun to rise to-morrow. Scottish Members should consider this question very seriously before they voted upon it. He thanked the hon. and learned Member for Waterford for kindly promising to support them in carrying out their wishes. When he moved the Amendment of which he had given notice he would state what he believed to be the opinion and wishes of the Scottish people as to this proposal; wishes which would prove that Scotland, far from agreeing to the auld sang being ended, was determined that it should have a future as marked and as nationally characteristic as in the past. While, therefore, approving in the main of the proposals of the Government he reserved for himself liberty, from a non-partisan point of view, to take the course which he considered best fitted to protect the interests of Scotland in the matter.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had admitted that the question of a Scottish Committee stood in an entirely different category from the other proposals embodied in the new procedure, and that it might be discussed apart from the question of expediting business. That was almost the only reference to this question which the right hon. Gentleman made in his weighty speech. The hon. Member for North

1563
Aberdeen had made some admissions which would perhaps be found convenient on the Opposition side of the House in regard to that part of the Resolution which referred to Scotland. In the opinion of many people of weight in Scotland the proposal of the Government was not only dangerous, but was an insult to the country. It was a curious and not uninteresting fact that on the two hundredth anniversary of the day that saw the Union between England and Scotland they had to meet what he regarded as an insidious attempt to introduce a breach into that Union, a breach which would be a serious blow to Scotland first of all. The noble Lord beside him and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, while holding the same opinion as himself in regard to the inexpediency of the proposal as to Scotland, seemed to think it was a benefit which could not properly be denied to England. That was not the view which he and others took of the proposal. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs had stated what he thought of the position of Scottish administration. He yielded to no one in earnestness for having the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies of Scotland maintained, and her traditions and history, and special national features fully defended, but this was not the means whereby that could be done. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs that Scottish interests were to be maintained by making certain that the administration of Scottish affairs was in the hands of men who understood them, men who were well known in Scotland, men who sympathised with her aspirations and were fully acquainted with her requirements. All the changes of recent years had been directed to attain this special point. The administration of Scotland was so arranged that it was in the hands of Scotsmen who were acquainted with the needs of the country. It was by maintaining the principle of having the administration in the right hands that this Parliament would maintain the right to govern Scotland. He wished that some of the Scottish Members had occasionally raised their voices much more powerfully in aid of his, when, as he believed, a wrong was done to Scotland by the Treasury.
1564
He believed it was not in the House that the danger to Scottish interests arose. He had no doubt that in the House justice would be dealt out to Scotland, but the danger lay in the recesses of the public offices, and it was in having the administration moulded on Scottish lines that they had their remedy. But what was this proposal to lead to? An indication had been given by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. Did the hon. Member think it was likely to lead to the realisation of the proposals which he, with strength of conviction no doubt, had made known—proposals which involved the holding of a Parliament in the city of Perth? Did he think that the aspirations which he had so eloquently uttered on behalf of Scotland were likely to be brought about sooner by the present proposals?
MR. PIRIE: Certainly.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he was delighted to have that admission from the hon. Member. They now knew what was the bait held out by the Government to their supporters. He thought the hon. Member's Parliamentary foresight was hardly to be put on a level with that of the hon. Member for Waterford who declined to have a Committee of this sort for Ireland, having made a demand for a national Parliament for that country. The admission of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen gave at the same time a valuable warning which, whatever might be the impression made on the Ministerial benches, would be read by a wider audience throughout Scotland. It was for the advantage of Scotland that Scottish legislation should be dealt with not in a hole-and-corner way, but by the whole Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. That was the vital principle involved in the Union, and with which the prosperity and just ambitions of Scotland were bound up. The Statute-book of Scotland was important enough to deserve and demand the full attention of the House, and if it delegated any part of its duties to any Committee, that Committee must reflect the colour and opinions of the House itself. Did Scotland always choose her representatives in proportion to their exact knowledge of, and close sympathy with, her life, and as citizens of her own community? Scotland was proud of such

1565
Members as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for India, and others whom he could name, but surely they were chosen for other reasons. They were chosen because of the capacity and genius they possessed for Parliamentary life, and not because they were peculiarly of Scottish origin or acquainted with Scottish life. It was by choosing her representatives in that way that Scotland had shown her intention that Scottish affairs, in their larger aspect, were not to be dealt with in any hole-and-corner way. The Prime Minister had told them that in the Scottish Committee they should have the presence of the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord-Advocate. [An Hon. Member: Two good men.] No doubt they would be excellent members of the Scottish Committee. But he was afraid their demands would not stop there. They must have the Prime Minister himself, the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for India, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and indeed half of the Government must devote themselves to the discussion of Scottish affairs. [An Hon. Member: And the ex-Prime Minister.] The ex-Prime Minister was an instance of a man who knew something about Scotland and who would be excluded from this Committee. In Scotland they had hitherto held their place on a free field with no favour. They had met the Members even from the "predominant partner" itself on the larger lists, and they were prepared to meet them there again. They were not anxious to have their combats banished to a little pen of their own. They had hitherto moved along the broad stream of Imperial politics, and they did not wish to be sent down a narrow channel hemmed in by embankments of parochial narrowness and Party prejudice.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that Irish Members had no desire that a Committee should be set up to deal with Irish affairs. Therefore, he, for one, could look upon the question more or less in a spirit of detachment. As a disinterested person what struck him was that the proposed change in procedure, by which the vast majority of Bills which had hitherto been considered by the House as a whole were to be sent to a Grand Committee, was an enormous one.
1566
And yet how much interest had the proposition aroused amongst Members generally? There were 670 Members of the House of Commons. He doubted whether anybody had seen 670 Members present in the House. The only occasion on which it might have been said that they were—with few exceptions which could be accounted for—was on the eve of the division on the Irish Home Rule Bill. He had come into the House at Question time, had remained ever since, and had watched very carefully what was going on. He had quietly to himself counted the House and found that on several occasions there was a bare quorum present, and never more than 100. That meant that hon. Members took so little interest in the question under discussion that they would not even come in to listen to the many excellent speeches that had been made. It proved conclusively that there was nothing in the proposals of the revolutionary and destructive character of which they had heard so much from the Opposition side of the House. It did not appear that hon. Members, as a whole, shared the opinion of the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, who seemed to imagine that if Scotsmen had something to do with the management of their own affairs it would break up the Union. He was astonished to hear that the Union was threatened in some other direction. Everything which had taken place of late inside and outside the House was an attempt, especially on the part of Irish Members, to break up the Union. It was refreshing to find that the latest attempt to break up the Union came from Scotland; that on this two-hundredth anniversary of the Union between England and Scotland there was a daring conspiracy to break up the Union and establish in Scotland a free and independent nation—if there ever was such a thing. He had watched Scottish, Irish, and Welsh debates in the House, and from long experience he could say that when a Scottish Bill was going through Committee there was never anything like 5 per cent. of other than Scottish Members present. It was practically a Scottish Committee. Members would come to the door, and ask the whips in which lobby they were to vote, and they went away. So it was with some Irish

1567
Bills. He remembered a discussion on an Irish Bill in 1903 when one would have imagined they were in an Irish House of Commons—not a single English Member being present, except perhaps a representative of the Government. So also with Welsh Bills. The new procedure would make no difference from that point of view; but it would enable Bills to be considered which would never go through the Committee stage of the Whole House. He thought the Scottish Members were exceedingly well advised in adopting the suggestion that Scottish Bills should be sent to a Committee upstairs largely composed of Scottish Members, and the Irish Members would be only too glad to give them their support in obtaining that small measure of control over their own affairs. The hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities had said that to send a Scottish Bill to a Grand Committee was to make its consideration a "hole-and-corner" affair. He considered that the right of Scottish Members to manage their own affairs was a "hole-and-corner" affair That was not, he was sure, the view of the great majority of the people of Scotland. No Irishman could have failed to notice that many a Bill anxiously desired by the people of Scotland was killed for want of time for its discussion in the House. A great deal had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin about the work to be performed by hon. Members in reference to the proposed new Committees. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he frequently met hon. Gentlemen at three o'clock in the afternoon after work in the Committee rooms upstairs driving home quite unable to face the added labour of attending in the House itself, and that it would be quite impossible for human nature to stand the double strain of Committee work and the work of the House. His own experience was that if it were not for occasional work upstairs, life in the Palace of Westminster would be absolutely intolerable. A great deal of nonsense was talked about the work of Members of Parliament. He might be rather disabusing the impression on the minds of constituents, but, after all, what was the enormous work which hon. Members were called upon to do?
1568
The average Member came down to the House at a quarter to three and listened to the Answers to Questions, which really was the most interesting time of the Parliamentary day. But directly Questions were over, what happened? Seven-eighths of the Members promptly got up and walked out of the House. And where did they go? As many as could find room in the smoking room—which he admitted was far too small—went there. Others went, in the summer time, to the terrace, or to the library, or elsewhere. But where was the work in that? Why, for the vast majority of Members there was absolutely no work! There was, if they liked, constant attendance which was tiresome; and if one attempted to leave the House he was arrested by one of the Whips, as if he were one of His Majesty's prisoners, and brought back. But there was no work for Members who wanted to take an intelligent interest in the business of the House. He maintained that the great majority of hon. Members would be very glad to gain the experience and information to be derived from attending those Grand Committees, but let it not be said that they could not stand the additional strain of taking part in them. He admitted that members of the Government were hard-worked, and it might be also said of some members of the Opposition when they made up their minds to have an all-night sitting. So far from an objection being made to these Grand Committees on the score of overwork, he believed that hon. Members would find a new interest in their lives by going on to those Committees, and would feel that they were actually doing the work which their constituents had sent them to Parliament to perform. From their special point of view, he thought the Nationalist Members would welcome the idea of giving the Scottish Members a Committee to deal with Scottish business.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that during the greater part of the evening the debate had turned not upon the new Standing Orders as a whole, but upon the proposal to establish a new Standing Committee for Scotland. He did not under-rate the immense importance of that change, but he proposed to reserve what he had to say upon it until

1569
they reached an Amendment in regard to it which was on the Paper, and not to follow the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and the right hon. Gentleman opposite upon what was, he would not say the least important change that the Government proposed, but a change of less general interest than the proposals of the Government as a whole. Whether in its ultimate effect it might prove most generally important he did not know. The point he wished to discuss was the proposal which the Government had made to the House that they should abolish the Committee stage for the greater part of their work and that they should throw all the detailed elaboration of that portion of their work upon the Report stage. Let them brush away at once, as he thought they ought to brush away, the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division and supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Those two right hon. Gentlemen both spoke with great authority, but they attempted to lead the House of Commons to believe that the Government were reviving, and doing no more than reviving, the long series of recommendations made by the Hartington Committee of1886. That suggestion was entirely illusory; the Government proposal was not that of the Committee of 1886 and had no resemblance to it. Undoubtedly the proposal would throw more work upon Members, and that the hon. Member for Clare considered a blessing in disguise, believing that the excitement of a Grand Committee relieved the intolerable tedium of Parliamentary life. It would greatly increase the hours of attendance, which the suggestion of the Committee of 1886 did not propose. A revival of that recommendation would remove a large block of his objections, but this was a different proposal. All questions of Parliamentary procedure should be considered from the points of view of the majority and of the Opposition, to bring about impartiality of judgment; and so looking at the Resolution, he considered its effect upon Grand Committees, a part of the legislative machinery which had done some excellent work. In so far as a Grand Committee was set to work upon long, complicated, useful, but rather dull,
1570
uncontroversial Bills, it had proved an admirable legislative instrument. He noticed, however, that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy seemed to regard the proposal from different points of view. The Prime Minister contemplated the sending of all Bills, with rare exceptions, to Grand Committee, only retaining for Committee of the Whole House measures exciting acute controversy and upon which revolt would arise should such Bills be handed over to the secret councils of eighty gentlemen upstairs. On the other hand, the Chancellor of the Duchy seemed to imply that Bills really controversial should not be sent up to the Committee, and it would be well to know which plan it was proposed to adopt. There was much to be said in favour of the plan of the Chancellor of the Duchy.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that all Bills were controversial, but what he meant was that great controversial measures of the Government should not be sent to these Committees.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the right hon. Gentleman's language went further than that. Even now he was not quite sure whether the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy saw eye to eye on the matter, because the latter thought that controversial matters should be sent up but not great controversial measures. It was important to know what was the Government design and to see what was embodied in the Resolution. The Government would only have to remain silent and the Bill would go upstairs without debate or division. ["No, no."]
SIR HENRY FOWLERread the proposed rule and pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition or any Member could move that the Bill be considered in Committee of the Whole House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was not clear from those words whether they carried with them this procedure. Supposing the Second Reading of a private Member's Bill was got by closure at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon, would it be competent to ask for a second division to decide whether the

1571
Bill was to go to a Committee upstairs. It did not say so, nor did he believe the new Standing Order carried out that view. But, leaving that subsidiary point, his main contention was that on important measures exciting deep religious feeling or touching great commercial or other interests the Grand Committee could not properly do the work required. So much for the first question of how it would affect Grand Committees. The next question was of more importance, namely, how would it effect their legislative work? He thought legislative work would be affected disastrously in two or three ways. In the first place, the Government could not give the proper amount of time to control all the work of the Grand Committees. There were not sufficient law officers to be present at all the Grand Committees to be established under this rule. The permanent officials could not be in Grand Committee day after day. They could not possibly give the time. Again there could not be the organised system with Grand Committees that there was in the House. Questions often arose in Committee which it was far beyond the competence of the Minister in charge of a measure to decide. How was the machinery to be provided in Grand Committee by which in those circumstances he could consult the Leader of the House or his colleagues? He had had great experience in this matter, and the present Leader of the House would confirm him when he said that he had been responsible for passing a great many difficult and controversial measures through the House, If a difficult Bill was going through the House he would have been very sorry to have been out of the reach of his colleague who was in charge of the Bill and to have been unable to have come into the House and given him such assistance as he could afford him. All that was impossible in Grand Committee. His noble friend who had spoken earlier in the evening, who had an inborn objection to all kinds of party organizations, had enforced Ministerial responsibility under the present system for legislation, especially of a controversial character. He believed, on on the whole, the Government of the day must in the main be responsible for the
1572
lines of legislation of the day, especially when it was of a controversial character, and he did not believe it was possible to throw upon Ministers, in addition to the difficult duties of attending Cabinet Committees, doing their work in their offices, and attending the House when it was sitting, the burden of coming down to the House at 11.30 and sitting on a Grand Committee. For the pleasure-loving gentlemen, whom those below the gangway so well represented, that might be an agreeable distraction, but for a Minister of the Crown it meant a slavery which would end in very imperfect work being done either in their offices on the one hand, or in the Grand Committee on the other. That was a great objection, but it was not the main one, and here he thought he ought to take up the challenge thrown out to him to suggest an alternative. Although it was not the business of an Opposition to provide an alternative, he reminded Ministers that he had to the best of his ability provided one in the proposals he made some years ago for the amendment of the rules of the House. He was prepared to grant that to go over in the whole House every detail of a great measure was to throw on its Members an unnecessary burden, a burden which resulted in an enormous amount of in quiry and in many cases wasted a great deal of time. Then the question arose, if it were a matter of common admission on both sides that a full discussion both in Committee and on Report was undesirable, with which of those stages ought they to interfere. Without hesitation he said the stage they ought to curtail was the Report stage, and not the Committee stage. It had been urged that as a Member could only speak once on the Report stage, therefore the Report stage should be left alone. In the Committee stage they could speak more than once, therefore let them curtail that stage. That was plausible; but he believed that of all who could speak only once on Report the Minister in charge of a Bill was most injured by the limitation. It was true he could speak again by leave of the House, but the limitations he was then under were embarrassing, and if he guarded against his comparative defencelessness, against the development of fresh

1573
attacks by anticipating them in his original speech instead of confining himself strictly to the point raised at the outset, nothing would be so likely to prolong debate. The speech of the Minister would in the first place be long and would be just of the character to provide material for obstruction to hon. Gentlemen who had not the ingenuity to secure that material for themselves. Would that save time? If hon. Gentlemen went through a debate that was obstructed they would see that the obstruction was not maintained by one man on the same amendment. It did not usually begin with the amendment first proposed. It began on points taken up by one speaker from another. He believed the plan was called "passing" at football. If he carried the House with him so far, he came to the ground which everybody must admit was the most serious objection. In the case of the Plural Voting Bill last session, in consequence of the criticisms passed on the Government, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill promised a number of changes which he asked the House to allow him to consider between the Committee and Report stages. The right hon. Gentleman could not have done the necessary drafting on the spur of the moment in Committee. No man had more capacity than the right hon. Gentleman, but it was beyond his ingenuity to do it. Nothing would conduce more to slovenly legislation than to compel even the most skilled draftsman to produce amendments of a complicated and far-reaching character without consideration. If the House was going for the first time to leave their discussions over to the Report stage, when there was no opportunity to consult the draughts men, then, of course, the amount of slovenly legislation for which they were responsible would be greatly increased. He thought the House was sometimes unduly attacked in regard to the drafting of its Bills. When Judges put an interpretation upon an Act of Parliament which was obviously not the intention of the Assembly that passed it, they always made some sarcastic references to the Government draftsmen or to the law officers of the Crown, or to some other more or less innocent person. Undoubtedly, there was some slovenly draftsmanship, and it might
1574
be in the recollection of the House, that John Stuart Mill was so impressed by that that he thought drafting ought to be done by a separate Committee; that the House should only decide on policy and that a Committee should advise it from the drafting point of view. If they were going to get a Grand Committee to do the drafting after the House had settled the policy there would be a great deal to be said for it; but that was not the plan of the Government. The House had never really taken a Grand Committee as an authority, and would never yield to its opinion in a matter of controversy. Therefore, whenever a Bill was really controversial, it would be revised from top to bottom on the Report stage, and he ventured sincerely to tell the House that if he was right in the view he had put forward, they would not only spend on Report all the time they now spent in Committee, but they would spend it to much less advantage, and the result would be that measures would be ill-defended and ill-advised—not from the point of view of policy, but ill-drafted and ill-expressed in legal language. If they took the plan which he advocated, the House would enormously reduce the time on the Report stage, which would be left for what it was designed, namely, the going over again, not the policy of the amendments, but to see that the necessary changes promised in Committee had been carried out. The Government would have his support in any policy of reform which would prevent the same weary debate being repeated on Report which had originally taken place in Committee. That would leave it to the House either to start new questions which the Government might think necessary, or to discuss the manner in which the Government had carried out changes in a Bill which they had already proposed in Committee. That appeared to him a practical suggestion. It would really relieve the House without diminishing its efficiency. It would save the time of Members without impairing their effectiveness as legislators. The discussion they had had and the consideration he had been able to give to the matter confirmed him in the view that the Committee stage, which was characteristic of the House—he admitted no other Assembly had it—

1575
was one of its greatest glories; it marked them off as a legislative body, to their advantage, from any other legislature in the world; and he thought it would be an evil day for them and their successors if in the vain hope of really diminishing the labours and burdens thrown upon them by modern legislative work—it would be an evil day if, in aiming at this most legitimate object, they were to destroy a stage which was characteristic of the House, and with which he was convinced they could not do away without inflicting a permanent blow on the efficiency of the legislative machine.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,)said that, following the example which had been set in the speeches that afternoon, he hoped that they would avoid anything of a partisan character in connection with these proposals, which, he thought, ought to be decided outside their ordinary divisions on one side of the House or the other, or between one part of each side and another. There were Members who honestly believed that the House of Commons legislated too much, that a great many unnecessary, and therefore mischievous, Bills were passed, that the slower they went the better, and that if a Government turned out one or two Bills in a Session they had done pretty well. The idea entertained by a large number of Members was that the House had fallen woefully behind in legislation, and that there were large arrears to be made up, that the country required, whether it were alive to the advantage of it or not, a great deal of legislation which in present circumstances could not be passed. He ranged himself, and the Government ranged themselves, among the second party, and it was in order to accelerate business, and to have a livelier and more effective method of conducting it, that they wished to see alterations made in the rules. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had made an interesting and powerful speech earlier in the evening, but he had never heard a stronger speech in favour of Home Rule—unintentionally, he thought, in favour of Home Rule—in favour of that side of
1576
the question of Home Rule which regarded, not so much the wants of Ireland or Scotland, or any other part of the United Kingdom, as the necessity of the House itself, which looked to the devolution of business. That sort of Home Rule had received a strong amount of advocacy, unconscious and unintentional, from the right hon. Gentleman. He argued that the proposed changes would be disastrous, and he implied that he would be content with certain little emendations of a subordinate character. He was afraid he could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's view. They would not be doing their duty to the country if they did not enlarge their powers, and, by some means, hit on a more effective method of passing measures through the House. The Chancellor of the Duchy and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division had referred to the recommendation of that most notable Committee—the Hartington Committee—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London had pointed out that the Government's proposal was not the same as the proposal made by that Committee. Why was it not the same? That Committee proposed to refer all Bills to Standing Committees. It added—
"When the business of the Standing Committee shall require it the House may order, on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown, after not less than two clear days notice, made at the meeting of the House and put without Amendment or debate, that on Thursdays and Fridays, until the House shall otherwise order, the morning sitting shall be appropriated to the business of the Standing Committees, and the House on such days shall meet for ordinary business at nine o'clock."
Thus they had two half-day holidays. That was said to vitiate the Government's proposals. All he could say was that if the proposals were accepted and the Standing Committees proved to be a success, and if it was found—as he thought it might be found—that circumstances admitted of it, there was no reason at all why there should not be one holiday a week given to the House at large. That would be a considerable relief. That Committee, he was told, also recommended that the House should be relieved from the duties now discharged by private Bill Committees. Well, his withers were unwrung in regard to

1577
Private Bill Committees, because he had urged, session after session, that the discussion of private business should be sent away from the House in order to relieve the strain upon members. The next point was that no controversial Bills ought to go upstairs. What was a controversial Bill? Every Bill was, or might be made, a controversial Bill. He would be disposed to say that a Bill which expressed a controversial doctrine and had a controversial object was a controversial Bill, But there was many a Bill which had an object which attracted the sympathy of all parts of the House which yet, in some of its provisions, might introduce controversy. They could not treat those two classes of Bill in the same category. The Second Reading disposed, so far as that House was concerned, of the controversial note of those Bills whose main object and purpose was controversial. Others must also go up to the Standing Committees, and they must take their chance of smaller controversies showing their heads there. But the Government had no desire to send the great measures of the session, which almost necessarily were controversial, to Grand Committees. They would still be retained under the control of the House. But there were very many measures, which might be long and elaborate, but which not only could be dealt with by Standing Committees, but had been dealt with with the greatest success by them—Bills such as factory Bills, full of the most delicate and complicated details, all arousing strong feelings and attacking certain interests. The right hon. Gentleman had made a great point that it might not be easy to have the requisite advice and control of the members of the Government. It might impose a great strain upon members of the Government. As to law officers, he regretted very much it was not possible to adopt a provision which he had always been in favour of, that they should have a third law officer—namely, the Judge-Advocate-General, and that he should always be available—which was quite consistent with his office—to give that legal assistance which was required of the Government in Committee. But when the present Government came into office they found that a permanent arrangement had been made, and there-
1578
fore they were deprived of that resource. But he could not help thinking that there might be means whereby legal assistance might be given on Committees, even although the two law officers were otherwise employed. Then the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out the effect upon the Report stage. But he thought the fallacy which underlay what he had said was that he spoke as if they were proposing that the Committee stage of a Bill should be completely suspended. A Bill might be as thoroughly examined and as successfully altered and adjusted in a Committee upstairs as in Committee of the Whole House. He rather thought that it would be better adjusted upstairs than there, where there was a tendency, natural to them all, to make speeches for speaking's sake. He did not see that that House of 670 members was a more favourable authority to settle the details of a Bill than a businesslike Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman had attacked them very fiercely because of the habit they had introduced of giving facilities for and adopting private Members' Bills. Undoubtedly the Land Tenure Bill last year was an imperfectly drafted Bill, and they suffered for it through the Report stage. He quite made that admission. But they came into office so immediately before the commencement of the session that they were unable to have their own Bills drafted, and they, therefore, adopted that Bill. But let them not found their expectations of what was to happen in the future under these new rules upon any such experience as that. It was quite an unusual, and, let them hope, it would remain an unusual, experience. Now that they had had this prolonged discussion on the general conception of, and the main purpose which underlay, these Rules of Procedure, which was that the business of examination in Committee should for the most part be referred to Standing Committees, and that it should be only exceptionally important Bills that were kept for the direct control of the House, he hoped they would be able to proceed to the Amendments.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYmoved to substitute for the proposal of the Prime Minister a Resolution providing that there should be a

1579
business committee of the House, consisting of Mr. Speaker and six other members nominated by Mr. Speaker, who should be representative of the various sections of political opinion in the House, and that all Bills, when they had been read a second time, should stand committed to either Committee of the Whole House or to a Grand or Special Committee in accordance with the decision of the business committee. He said that from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Duchy it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman did not approve of the course he proposed. He admitted that it was a somewhat bold step for a private Member to put forward a proposition of this kind. There were undoubtedly great difficulties in the way of forming such a Committee. Having disclaimed any intention in making this proposal of bringing the Speaker into controversial matters, he said the object he had in view was to give to the House the power which the Government desired to retain for themselves. After what they had heard he believed it was all the more necessary that they should adopt some practice of this sort. Notwithstanding the statements which had been made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy they were still in very much doubt what particular Bills were going to be sent to the Grand Committees which had not been sent in to them in the past. It had been stated that the great Bills of the session were still to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. If that was so, of course a good deal of the argument of the Prime Minister as to a Grand Committee's being a superior body for producing a better drafted Bill than Committee of the Whole House fell to the ground. But it was evident that the Government themselves acknowledged that the whole House was capable of dealing with Bills in Committee; no instance, so far as he knew, had been given of any Bill which had not been sent to a Grand Committee, and which would be sent under the new system. The Prime Minister had appealed to the whole range of the Factories Bills; but they had for years been sent to the Grand Committee. There had never been any disposition on the part of the House to refuse their consideration in Grand Committee. It was acknow-
1580
ledged that it was just that sort of Bill which could, with great advantage, be relegated to a Grand Committee for consideration. They were lengthy Bills dealing with technical subjects, and, in the main, they were not controversial from the Party point of view. Last session the House sat for a great number of months, but only three Bills were dealt with in Committee of the Whole House, namely, the Education Bill, the Trade Disputes Bill, and the Plural Voting Bill. He thought that Bills which affected the franchise should be excluded from the Standing Order, because they knew that on such matters the authority of a Grand Committee would not be accepted by the House. He thought, before they proceeded further, they should have some clear statement as to what special Bills would be sent to the Grand Committees which had not been sent before. His proposal was that there should be a small Committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker, and such men us the Chairman of the Panel, the Chairman of Committees, and others of experience, to say whether a Bill should be left to be considered by Committee of the Whole House, or sent to a Grand Committee. He believed such a scheme would work admirably, and that it would remove a good deal of friction and controversy. Possibly, if such a Committee gained the confidence of the House, it might in the future be given even greater powers, such as deciding the time that should be allotted to the consideration of particular Bills. The proposal had some authority behind it in the evidence which was given before the Procedure Committee last year. Sir Courtenay Ilbert believed such a scheme could be worked out, while Lord Selby, though he afterwards receded from the position, expressed the opinion that a Committee, consisting of the Speaker, two Members of the Government, and two members from the other side of the House, chosen by the Speaker himself with reference to their character and standing in the House, would be an ideal tribunal for dealing with the question.
MR. T. L. CORBETTseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 1, to leave out from the beginning to 'But,' in line 3, and insert 'there shall be a

1581
Business Committee of the House, consisting of Mr. Speaker and six other Members nominated by Mr. Speaker, who shall be representative of the various sections of political opinion in the House.All Bills, when they have been read a second time, shall stand committed to either Committee of the Whole House, or to a Grand or Special Committee, in accordance with the decision of the Business Committee.' "—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'when a' stand part of the Question."
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he quite appreciated the motive of the hon. Gentleman in moving his Amendment, but the answer to the hon. Member's proposal was that given by Lord Selby himself. If the hon. Member had proposed to constitute a Committee to deal with the time to be devoted to Bills so as to get rid of the guillotine he would have been inclined to give it a very favourable reception. The hon. Member had quoted the evidence of Lord Selby; but had stopped short in his quotation. What Lord Selby said was—
"If you had not to consider the important point of keeping the Speaker free from all these questions, I should say that a very small Committee, consisting of two Members, taken, we will say, two from the Government side, and two from the other side, but chosen by the Speaker himself with reference to their character and standing in the House, would be an ideal tribunal for dealing with that question. Then, of course, the Speaker must decide if they differ."
And Lord Selby went on to say—
"I am not recommending that, because I foresee that it would throw upon the Speaker at times probably a somewhat difficult task, and it might place him in a very unpleasant position. I do not think if one reasonably and cooly considered it, it ought to place him in a difficult position, but people, unfortunately, are not always very reasonable and very cool in dealing with Parliamentary matters, and therefore I should hesitate to recommend it."
Then, in reference to this ideal tribunal's consisting of two Members of experience taken from the two sides of the House with the Speaker, and in answer to the question whether if they differed would not the Speaker be placed in the unpleasant position of having to decide the question, Lord Selby said—
"Yes; but you must have somebody to decide it, and you could not have it decided by anything that could be said to be a political majority."
1582
In fact, it would throw upon the Speaker the burden of deciding upon a political question. He could not accept the Amendment which he believed to be wholly unworkable.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid it would not only be unworkable, but unrealisable. There was a general tendency of human nature to shunt off the decision of difficult questions on to somebody else. It was easy to imagine a heaven-sent Committee above all mundane passions; but he feared that that was an impossible ideal. He was afraid that the proposal would place on the occupant of the chair a duty which might be very disagreeable when there was an equality of votes on a particular Bill, such as a Licensing Bill.
*MR. McCRAEsaid that the hon. Member for the Ashford Division had made out a very poor case for the Amendment which he had moved. As a member of the Committee who had listened to all the evidence, he was assured that the great majority of the Committee felt that however desirable in theory some such suggestion as had been made by the hon. Member for Ashford might be, it would, in practice, be unworkable. If the hon. Gentleman would consider the whole of Lord Selby's evidence he would see that the late Speaker really departed from the suggestion before he had finished. He himself put a question to Lord Selby—
"After all it is the Government which is responsible for the business of the House and for the bringing in of the Bills?"—"Yes." "And therefore you see no objection to the Government's having the responsibility of deciding which Bill shall be sent to Standing Committees, and which shall be kept in Committee of the Whole House?"—"No; it has always been understood that the Leader of the House for the time being has a duty to both sides of the House in a question of that kind."
The hon. Member had no weight of authority to support his case. His proposal was quite impracticable.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that he was a member of the Committee, and he confessed that he did not take the same view as the hon. Members for East Edinburgh and

1583
the right hon. Member for Hallam. He quite saw the difficulties which surrounded the whole question, but he did not wish to thrust on the Chair any duties which might bring upon its occupant a stigma by having to decide a Party question. On the other hand, he saw great advantages in the suggestion of his hon. friend if they could only find a body, other than the Government, which would decide what Bills should be sent upstairs. The Chancellor of the Duchy had said that no important Government Bills on which the fate of the Government might depend would be sent upstairs, and the Prime Minister had made a similar statement. That modified the objection which he had to sending all ordinary Bills upstairs. From his experience on Grand Committees he held that they could not deal successfully with measures which involved much controversy. Those Committees had been excellent bodies for dealing with administrative measures, and Bills on the principle of which there was general agreement, such as factory legislation and workmen's compensation. He wished nothing to be done which would tend to break down the Grand Committee system. At the same time he wished that there could be some body other than the Government to decide which Bill should be sent upstairs; and he did not think it would pass the wit of man to devise such a body; for instance, it might be formed out of the members of the Chairmen's Panel. Such a Committee could decide on the delicate question of what Bills were to be sent upstairs, and also on the time limit, He thought his hon. friend behind him had made out a case for the House to consider carefully whether the questions ought not to be referred to an impartial Committee before Bills were sent upstairs. He did not readily give tip the old idea that they might be able to find some Committee which would be able to deliberate upon and decide such a question, and which should have the complete confidence of both sides of the House. His object was in no way to thrust a partisan duty upon the Speaker because, he believed nothing would inflict greater s injury on the House than to put the Speaker in an equivocal position.
MR. FORSTERsaid he was reluctant to touch upon this question, but as a Member of the Committee which considered it he felt it his duty to do so. He would do nothing to jeopardise the good relations which had invariably existed between the House of Commons and the Chair, and they could not leave out of sight that the whole question of whether or not the system which the Government sought to set up would work smoothly and well depended upon whether the Bills which were sent to the Standing Committees were really controversial or not. It was that question, and that question alone, that they were concerned with, in considering whether they should accept the Amendment. Who was to decide whether the Bills which would be sent to the Grand Committees would be controversial or not? Under the proposals of the Government as they stood it would be the Government, and it would therefore be the very persons who introduced and were responsible for the Bills to be considered. Who would decide whether or not a Bill was controversial? That was not, to his view, a wholesome position, not only from the point of view of that House of Commons, but from the point of view of any House of Commons to be constituted in the future. They knew that it was not the intention of the present Government to send large controversial measures to these Grand Committees, but they had no guarantee that the Government, in days to come, would abide by the spirit of the Resolution as now interpreted by the Government. That was a point which was evidently in the mind of Lord Selby, who naturally spoke with great authority on the subject when he was good enough to give evidence before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division took up the point that there was no danger of His Majesty's present Government abusing the powers entrusted to them, and Lord Selby said he thought there was no danger of that sort in regard to present Parliamentarians, but in regard to those of ten or fifteen years hence Lord Selby said it was difficult to say what a new generation, unaccustomed to the present practice, might do. That meant that

1585
some Government, less scrupulous than the Government now in office, might find it convenient to stand upon the words literally translated, instead of upon the spirit of the Standing Order. At present there was no danger that highly controversial Bills would be sent upstairs, but there might be the danger of a Government who would say—
"We are in a tight place; we are anxious to have certain measures carried out before we part for the recess, and we shall take our stand upon the words of the Standing Orders, and not upon he spirit which was expressed when they were passed; and we shall send these Bills upstairs."
Then he thought they would be face to face with a state of things which His Majesty's Government contemplated, but from which they shrank. He thought it would be advisable for the House as a whole to safeguard themselves in some measure against what they all admitted would be an abuse of the powers of the Government. Such a safeguard was suggested by his hon. friend behind him.
As Lord Selby said, the question ought not to be decided by a majority behind a Minister; the fact that he had a minority before him was what he had to consider. Surely if they could, without jeopardising the Chair, constitute a Committee consisting of Members of both sides of the House, presided over by the Speaker, which should decide which Bills should be sent upstairs, it would be the better course. For himself, he could not see how, under the proposal of his hon. friend, the position of the Speaker could be put in jeopardy. The minority would bow to the decision of the Speaker, and it would not be thrown in the teeth of the Government that they were imposing their will upon an unwilling House of Commons. The course suggested would avoid trouble in the future
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes 35. (Division List No. 91.)

AYES.

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

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness

Abraham, William (Rhondda

Brodie, H. C.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Brooke, Stopford

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Agnew, George William

Bryce, J. Annan

Elibank, Master of

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Ellis, Rt. Hn. John Edward

Alden, Percy

Burke, E. Haviland-

Erskine, David C.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Esslemont, George Birnie

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Evans, Samuel T.

Ambrose, Robert

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Everett, R. Lacey

Astbury, John Meir

Byles, William Pollard

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Ferens, T. R.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Barker, John

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

Barnard, E. B.

Cleland, J. W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Barnes, G. N.

Clough, William

Fullerton, Hugh

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Clynes. J. R.

Gill, A. H.

Beale, W. P.

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

Glover, Thomas

Bell, Richard

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bellairs, Carlyon

Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Gooch, George Peabody

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Grant, Corrie

Benn, W. (T'wr Hamlets, S Geo.

Cory, Clifford John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bennett, E. N.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gulland, John W.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cox, Harold

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Bertram, Julius

Cremer, William Randal

Halpin, J.

Bethell, Sir. J. H(Essex Romford

Crombie, John William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Crooks, William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Billson, Alfred

Cross, Alexander

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Black, Arthur W

Cullinan, J.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Boland, John

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbysh., N. E.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Bowerman, C. W.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Brace, William

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Branch, James

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Brigs, John

Duckworth, James

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

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

Montagu, E. S.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Higham, John Sharp

Mooney, J. J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Searvens, J. H.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Shackleton, David James

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Murnaghan, George

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

Holland, Sir William Henry

Murray, James

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hooper, A. G.

Myer, Horatio

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

Simon, John Allsebrook

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nolan, Joseph

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hudson, Walter N.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Snowden, P.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Nuttall, Harry

Spicer, Sir Albert

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stanger, H. Y.

Jackson, R. S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Jenkins, J.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Partington, Oswald

Summerbell, T.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Paul, Herbert

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jowett, F. W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pearson, W. H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Thorne, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Pirie, Duncan V.

Verney, F. W.

Lamont, Norman

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walters, John Tudor

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

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

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

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lehmann, R. C.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Levy, Maurice

Radford, G. H.

Wardle, George J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Waring, Walter

Lough, Thomas

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Lundon, W.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Lynch, H. B.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Redmond, William (Clare

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Rees, J. D.

White, Luke (York, E.R.

Maclean, Donald

Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

Whitehead, Rowland

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'm't'n

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.

Richardson, A.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

M'Callum, John M.

Rickett, J. Compton

Wiles, Thomas

M'Crae, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wilkie, Alexander

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

Williams, L. (Carmarthen)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wills, Arthur Walters

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

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

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

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Marnham, F. J.

Robinson, S.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Menzies, Walter

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Molteno, Percy Alport

Rowlands, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Mond, A.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

A. Pease.

NOES.

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nield, Herbert

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Fell, Arthur

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Thornton, Percy M.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hervey, F. W. F.(BuryS. Edm'ds

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

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor CW

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Rawlinson.

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Magnus, Sir Philip

MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the Amendment he now proposed to move would have the effect of restricting the operation of this new departure to Bills
1588
for which the Government was responsible. He freely admitted that, if the Amendment were accepted, considerable consequential Amendments to the

1589
Standing Orders would be necessary. Private Members' Bills would still be free to go to the Standing Committee, but they would go there only when the House chose to send them there by Resolution. He had two reasons for making this proposal. He had been very much impressed, in the course of his experience, with the great waste of time through the labours of Members being insperative under our present system. In this Standing Order the Government appeared to lose sight of the profound difference between Committees of the Whole House and Committees upstairs. Committees upstairs were unable to avoid the duty of considering a Bill and making some return to the House. A Committee of the Whole House could get rid of that difficulty by refusing to consider a Bill further, or the Bill could be withdrawn, or a Committee of the Whole House could pass a Resolution suspending its proceedings. He had therefore been much impressed with the waste of time involved by Members considering Bills in Committee which had no chance of going further. It was for that reason he left the private Bills in their present position. He desired that in a great change like that now proposed the House should proceed by steps, by way of experiment, and not proceed too fast until they found by experience that the course proposed was possible. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 1, after the first 'a,' to insert 'Government.' "—(Mr. Stuart Wortley.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'Government' be there inserted."
SIR F. BANBURYthought that they ought to have some reply, although personally he did not agree with the Amendment. If all the Amendments moved from the Unionist side of the House were to be treated in that way; if it was to be understood that it was the intention of the Government to force rules of this revolutionary character through the House without giving any reason for their being so forced, without their taking the trouble even to answer important Amendments, then he thought the result might be disastrous, so far as
1590
saving any time in discussion was concerned. If the Amendment were carried, Government measures would go to the four Committees automatically, and private Members' Bills would be in the same position as at present. He had watched very narrowly private Bills for the last ten years, and they had all gone upstairs. ["No."] Well, nearly all; he had found that in nine cases out of ten private Members' Bills had gone to one of the two Grand Committees upstairs. He was not defending the principle, because, as a rule, private Members' Bills were all bad, but it was no use blinking at the fact that they did go upstairs in the manner he had stated. Therefore, if his right hon. friend went to a division, as he hoped he would, then he would excuse him if he voted with the Prime Minister on this occasion, unless, of course, the Prime Minister accepted the Amendment, in which case he should have to vote against him.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the hon. Baronet evidently loved the Prime Minister little, but loved the Amendment less. If he were not a member of the Government no doubt he would be ready to maintain that there was a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment, because there were certain private Members' Bills which might not be so much designed to enrich the Statute-book as to carry out pledges, win popularity, or fulfil other purposes. But, being a member of the Government, he was bound to save them from the imputation of favouring themselves, by drawing a distinction between Government measures and private Members' Bills. It was therefore impossible for the Government to support the Amendment.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Prime Minister had not altogether appreciated the argument on which his right hon. friend had based the Amendment. He thoroughly understood that the Government did not desire to discriminate between their own and private Members' Bills; but might he point out that private Members' Bills which were read a second time on a Friday were invariably sent to Committees upstairs? When those Bills came from Grand Committees further

1591
consideration of them was reserved until after Whitsuntide, when there were only two days set apart for them. If the ground taken up by the Prime Minister and the Government was to be maintained, they could not stop there; they would have to give increased facilities for private Members' Bills. At present the proposal of the Government simply meant that the Grand Committees would be called upon to do what they had already done, namely, consider measures which would have no chance of proceeding further when they came back to the House. Therefore—he did not use the words offensively—the scheme was a delusion and a snare. In reality they were not giving private Members' Bills the same advantage as would be given to the Bills of the Government, who had control of the time of the House, and could give their measures priority on the Order Paper. He did not think the Prime Minister had fully appreciated the great importance of the Amendment, which appeared to him to go in the direction the Government wished to follow. He thought that by drawing a distinction between Government Bills which had a fixed and definite prospect, and private Members' Bills, which had no such prospect, they would be furthering rather than retarding their own proposal.
*MR. JOHN ELLISsaid it was not often he found himself in agreement with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, but he did so that night. Those Members who had sat in former Parliaments were aware, of course, that there was a considerable waste of time in Grand Committees over Bills which had little chance of being passed into law. He thought, however, the remedy for the difficulty was to be found in other ways. In the old days some of the best of the statutes were brought in by private Members. There were changed times before them. Whether Liberals or Conservatives were on the Government side of the House, they would find that the atmosphere of the House of Commons was different from what it had been in the last twenty years. In the changed times he hoped there would be a recrudescence of the opportunities for private Members' Bills passing into law. The Amendment was, in his opinion, open to the gravest objection. He thought
1592
that private Members' Bills should not be put in an inferior position in respect of their reference to Standing Committees to Government measures. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that there were other means of avoiding the waste of time besides that which he had suggested. It would be perfectly possible to change the time when Bills were placed in the order of precedence. They could be given precedence two or three weeks earlier in the session, and that would give them a chance of passing into law. There were other ways which he need not indicate at present. He hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he had not been absent from the Standing Committee on Law on more than one or two occasions in many years. Speaking, therefore, from long experience, he thought there ought to be some limitation, and that Bills ought not to be referred to that Committee in the light-hearted manner suggested by the Government. He had prepared a list of the Bills which had been referred to the Standing Committee on Law, and it seemed to him that the House in referring Bills should have regard rather to their character than to their magnitude. The passing of the Factories and Workshops Bill, which had been referred to with great force by the Prime Minister, was an interesting illustration of the good work which could be done by a Standing Committee when all parties desired to pass a Bill. That measure brought about a most salutary reform of the law. It was not produced in a hurry. The sittings were prolonged and the inquiry was most careful. Another extremely interesting Bill was that dealing with education, which was passed under the auspices of Sir John Gorst. That Bill was much amended in Committee, but the discussions were conducted in the most friendly and kindly spirit. The Bill dealing with the employment of children was a most difficult one, but it was dealt with in the same spirit and with the same happy result. Another most important Bill dealt with by Grand Committee was that which was necessitated by the great scandal which arose years ago in consequence of the practice of imputing.

1593
blame to candidates for Parliamentary election. Many Members lost their seat on account of the accusations. A Bill passed through the Standing Committee in one or two sittings making those scandalous proceedings corrupt practices Therefore he had come to the conclusion that there ought to be some definition o the character of the Bills to be referred to those Committees. He would support the Amendment, though he did not say it proposed the best method of doing what he desired to see done.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYthought it was desirable that there should be some distinction between Government Bills and unofficial Members' Bills. After Whitsuntide the Government had the whole time of the House, except ten hours. He did not think that a Grand Committee should be asked to spend its time in considering private Members' Bills, when there was no prospect of their becoming law. The right hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division had said there were other means of getting out of the difficulty. This Resolution came to the House with the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, for he was a Member of the Government at the time. If there were other means he did not put them before the Procedure Committee. Why did he not do so? He would certainly vote in favour of the Amendment.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it seemed to him that the Government were trying to protect the rights of private Members, while the Opposition were trying to strengthen the hands of the Government. It would be a misfortune if in passing these procedure Resolutions they were to pass them in such a way as to make a distinction between Government Bills and other kinds of Bills. A Bill introduced by a private Member might become a Government Bill. There had been two instances of that already in the present Parliament, and it would be exceedingly awkward if they started by making distinctions as to how the Bills should be dealt with. If a large number of Bills were sent to Grand Committees with no. chance of their passing through the
1594
subsequent stages, there would be a large amount of valuable time wasted. One result which suggested itself to his mind was that the House would possibly be far more careful in passing Second Readings if it knew that the effect would be, not merely as sometimes happened at present, to shelve the measure, but to send it to a Grand Committee. He could not support the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURremarked that as between Government Bills and private Members' Bills there was a distinction, and he thought there ought to be. The Government ought to be, he would not say the controllers, but the guides of the House in matters of legislation. In former days some of the most important legislation was brought in and carried through by private Members. But as Parliamentary life became more strenuous it would be found less and less possible to carry out that plan. The advice of the Government should be an important factor which the House had to take into account before coming to a decision. His hon. friend's ideal of perfect equality between the Bills of the Government and those of private Members would not bear examination in the light of the facts. At present the great mass of private Members' Bills were treated not so much as actual projects of legislation as the occasion of fruitful discussion. Nobody supposed that a really controversial Bill in the hands of a private Member, introduced on the third or fourth Friday in the session, had the smallest chance of passing, and no heartburning arose. But if they provided machinery whereby those Bills would be advanced another stage, that of Committee, it seemed to him it would really raise expectations which must be perpetually defeated. If, however, such Bills did pass the Report and Third Reading stages, there would undoubtedly be a great mass of very crude legislation. Besides, the Committee stage of those Bills would occupy from eighty to 100 Members in hard work for a great many days in the session, and unless the Bills were passed, all that labour would be thrown away. His right hon. friend's Amendment appeared to him perfectly sound in principle, although it would require

1595
some small consequential Amendments later, and he thought the Government would be well advised to confine the proposals to their own measures.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 42; Noes, 281. (Division List No. 92.)

AYES.

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

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

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darling on)

Banner, John S. (Harmood-

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Percy, Earl

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

Fell, Arthur

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hervey, F. W. F.(BurySEdm'ds)

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Cavendish,Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Mr. Stuart-Wortley and Sir Francis Powell.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

NOES.

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

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Abraham, Wm.(Rhondda)

Brodie, H. C.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Acland, Frencis Dyke

Brooke, Stopford

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Agnew, George William

Bryce, J. Anna

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Elibank, Master of

Alden, Percy

Burke, E. Haviland-

Ellis, Rt. Hn. John Edward

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Erskine, David C.

Allen, Chas. P. (Stroud)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Ambrose, Robert

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Evans, Samuel T.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Everett, R. Lacey

Astbury, John Meir

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Ferens, T. R.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Balfour, Robert (Lanark

Cherry, Rt. Hn. R. R.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cleland, J. W.

Foster, Rt. Hn. Sir Walter

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Clough, William

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Barker, John

Clynes, J. R.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Barnard, E. B.

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Barnes, G. N.

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

Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gill, A. H.

Beale, W. P.

Corbett, C.H.(Sussex, EGrinst'd

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Beauchamp, E.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Glover, Thomas

Bell, Richard

Cory, Clifford John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gooch, George Peabody

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't

Cox, Harold

Grant, Corrie

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

Cremer, William Randal

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Crombie, John William

Gulland, John W.

Bertram, Julius

Crooks, William

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, Romford

Cross, Alexander

Halpin, J.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Billson, Alfred

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Boland, John

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

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

Bowerman, C. W

Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.

Harwood, George

Brace, William

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Bramsdon, T.A.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Haworth, Arthur A.

Branch, James

Duckworth, James

Hayden, John Patrick

Brigg, John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hedges, A. Paget

Hemmerde, Edward George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Rowlands, J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Massie, J.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

Menzies, Walter

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Higham, John Sharp

Mond, A.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Montagu, E. S.

Shackleton, David James

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Montgomery, H. G.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Murnaghan, George

Simon, John Allsebrook

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Murphy, John

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hudson, Walter

Murray, James

Snowden, P.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Idris, T. H. W.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Stanger, H. Y.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Nolan, Joseph

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Jackson, R. S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Jardine, Sir J.

Nuttall, Harry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jenkins, J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Summerbell, T.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Jowett, F. W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Kekewich, Sir George

Paul, Herbert

Thorne, William

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Thornton, Percy M.

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lambert, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Verney, F. W.

Lamont, Norman

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walters, John Tudor

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

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

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lehmann, R. C.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Levy, Maurice

Radford, G. H.

Wardle, George J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Waring, Walter

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Lough, Thomas

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Lundon, W.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lupton, Arnold

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lynch, H. B.

Redmond, William (Clare)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Macdonald, J. R.(Leicester)

Rees, J. D.

Whitehead, Rowland

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Maclean, Donald

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

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Richardson, A.

Wiles, Thomas

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Wilkie, Alexander

M'Callum, John M.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wills, Arthur Walters

M'Crae, George

Roberta, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Winfrey, R.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Robertson, SirG. Scott(Bradf'rd

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Robinson, S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Marnham, F. J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

MR. STUART WORTLEYmoved an Amendment of which the hon. Member for Ashford had given notice restricting the Bills to be sent to Grand Committees to those read a second time by a majority of two-thirds of the Members voting in a division. Though not a complete solution, he thought it was an approach to a distinction between controversial and non-controversial Bills, and there were precedents for proportional majori-
ties. There was something of the kind in the original rules of 1882 as to the application of the closure. In those rules it was necessary before the closure could be applied that there should be 100 Members in the House, and that the majority for the closure should be forty. The emergency rules of 1881, which were only current for that single session, provided that the closure must be carried by a majority of two-thirds of the Members

1599
present. With these two precedents before them it was not possible to say that the idea involved in the Amendment was foreign to the procedure of the House.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 1, after the word 'time,' to insert the words 'by a majority of more than two-thirds of the Members voting in the said division.' "—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
Question proposed, "That those words there inserted."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he could not accept the Amendment, for which he saw no necessity. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted certain precedents, but they were not very valid precedents, because experience had shown that they were unworkable. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that unimportant Bills might be sent upstairs—Bills which were separate from controversial measures. He did not want any distinction to be drawn, but the intention was to retain for Committee of the Whole House only measures of great importance such as the Government made the main business of a session. He did not see that there was any necessity for the rigid rule laid down in the Amendment, and he hoped it would not be pressed. The hon. Member for Ashford, who had given notice of it, evidently did not think it important, as he had abandoned it.
MR. WALTER LONGasked if they were to understand that there was to be no limit at all to the Bills that were to go upstairs? But for the activity of hon. Members the chief of whom was the present Deputy Chairman, whose knowledge of procedure they all recognised, the Bills of private Members read a second time would be
1600
more numerous than they were. If certain hon. Members desired to break down this rule they had only to allow a number of Bills to pass Second Reading, and the Grand Committees would be flooded with a number of badly-drafted and crudely-drawn Bills, which hon. Members must know would only come down to the House to be thrown out, although the Committees might have spent a long time in trying to put them into shape. Without a limit that would become a stumbling block of a serious character. One reason why the Grand Committees had done good work hitherto was that they had seriously considered the Bills sent to them with the view of passing them into law, and under the present system only one or two could be passed into law unless they were taken up by the Government, although probably eight or nine had been read a second time after inadequate discussion on Friday afternoons. His own belief was that if hon. Gentlemen who had sat week after week on Grand Committees on Bills discovered that all their labour had been in vain, it would soon be found that no quorum would turn up on the Grand Committees to consider the Bills remitted to them. It was for that reason that he supported the limitation suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he had been reluctant to intrude too much on the attention of the House, but he had not, as the Prime Minister suggested, abandoned his Amendment. He was only too glad to think that it had been taken up by his right hon. friend. He still thought it was desirable to have some means of deciding in the House whether Bills were of a nature to go to a Grand Committee or not; and the Amendment

1601
would show that in the opinion of the House there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill going upstairs. He hoped that his right hon. friend would push the Amendment to a division.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLthought that there must he some sifting process under which Hills should be sent to the Standing Committee. To send every Bill to the Standing Committee must inevitably in time break it down. He believed himself, strange as the remark might appear to some hon. Members, that more time had been wasted in Grand Committees by waiting for a quorum than by undue deliberation and the prolongation of debate. He therefore thought the extension of the system was hurtful. He was sure that it involved a waste of time of the House, and it was no compliment to hon. Members to ask them to come down, at great sacrifice of convenience and time, to attend to public duties, when the Bill which they had to consider had no possibility of passing into law.
SIR F. BANBURYsupported the Amendment, which he thought was a very useful one, to which he could see no objection. He understood the Prime Minister, in advancing reasons for refusing to accept the Amendment, to say that all Bills were controversial, but that large Government Bills would not be sent up to the Grand Committees. Was he right in that?
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he understood then that all Bills large or small would go up to these Committees.
Sir H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: No.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was at a loss to know what was intended. What was wanted on his side of the House was, that before they passed these procedure rules, they should frame a rule defining what Bills were to go to a Grand Committee and what Bills were not. At this present moment the only Bills which were not to go to Grand Committee were measures imposing taxes, Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders. He did not want to cast any aspersion upon the intentions of the Front Bench opposite, but it was one thing to say such and such a Bill would be reserved for the consideration of Committee of the Whole House, and it was quite another thing to pass a rule under which they did not know what Bills were going to Grand Committee and what Bills were not. In order to meet that point his right hon. friend had suggested words restricting the Bills to be sent to Grand Committee to those "read a second time by a majority of two-thirds of the Members voting in a division." He thought that was a very reasonable proposal, and there was a precedent for it in the proceedings of the House itself, because between 1882 and 1888 there was a limit under which the closure could not be applied unless a hundred Members voted for it. There were a considerable number of Bills in regard to which opinion in the House was not very decided. A large number of Members coming up from the smoking room or the dining room met friends who induced them to go into the "aye" or the "no" lobby when there was a division, but if those Bills were to be sent upstairs there would be

1603
greater deliberation on the part of hon. Members as to the way they should vote, and he thought the Amendment would secure that. It was a great change that was proposed, and they wanted to secure that, before a Bill went to a Grand Committee, it was a measure which in the opinion of the House should go upstairs and be given facilities for passing. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy that they ought not to look upon this as a Party question, and he agreed with his right hon. friend the senior Member for the City of London that they should look upon it from both points of view—that of the Government and that of the Opposition. The acceptance of his right hon. friend's Amendment was not likely to hurt the Government, because they had such a large majority, but it might hurt the Unionist Party if they came back with a small majority. The Amendment would establish a precedent which would enable the House to exercise some control over the Bills to which it gave a Second Reading. The only result of the new rules, unless something of this nature was done, would be to increase tenfold the power of the Government. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into opposition they would find, unless the Amendment were adopted, that they had put a very great weapon into the hands of the Government. One of the great complaints against the Unionist Party, no doubt sincerely made, was that their new rules of procedure had taken out of the hands of private Members a power which
formerly belonged to them and put that power into the hands of the Government, so that the Government practically became dictators. These new rules would in his opinion strengthen the influence of the Government and weaken the influence of private Members. He challenged any private Member to get up and deny that what he said was right. The only result of passing the rules would be to enable the Government to do anything they liked. The rights of private Members ought to be safeguarded. They had a right to investigate the Bills of the Government and to express their opinion upon them.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the difficulty of the Amendment was that if a Bill was carried by less than a two-thirds majority it would not go to a Committee of the Whole House, and it would require a special Resolution. All this rule did was to ensure that one division should be taken instead of two. The true remedy was not to read the Bill a second time if it was desired not to cumber the Standing Committee with a measure that had no chance of going any further. He saw great difficulty in adopting the Amendment, because no provision was indicated and no adequate provision could be made for that class of Bill which passed its Second Reading by less than a two-thirds majority.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 296. (Division List No. 93.)

AYES.

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

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Boyle, Sir Edward

Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(CityLond.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Carlile, E. Hildred

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bowles, G. Stewart

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Cave, George

Helmsley, Viscount

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Hervey, F. W. F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

Renton, Major Leslie

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Valentia, Viscount

Dalrymple, Viscount

Magnus, Sir Philip

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Fell, Arthur

Nield, Herbert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Mr. Stuart-Wortley and Mr. Laurence Hardy.

Forster, Henry William

Percy, Earl

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

NOES

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Causton, Rt. HnRichard Knight

Gooch, George Peabody

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Grant, Corrie

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cheetham, John Frederick

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Agnew, George William

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gulland, John W.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cleland, J. W.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Alden, Percy

Clough, William

Halpin, J.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Clynes, J. R.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Ambrose, Robert

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cooper, G. J.

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

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Harwood, George

Astbury, John Meir

Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E.Grinst'd

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Cory, Clifford John

Hayden, John Patrick

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hedges, A. Paget

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Cox, Harold

Hemmerde, Edward George

Barker, John

Cremer, William Randal

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Barnard, E. B.

Crombie, John William

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

Barnes, G. N.

Crooks, William

Henry, Charles S.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cross, Alexander

Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Davies, David(Montgomery Co.)

Higham, John Sharp

Beale, W. P.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Beauchamp, E.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Bell, Richard

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.

Hooper, A. G.

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Bennett, E. N.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Berridge, T. H. D.

Duckworth, James

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Bertram, Julius

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Hudson, Walter

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Billson, Alfred

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Idris, T. H. W.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Black, Arthur W.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Jackson, R. S.

Boland, John

Elibank, Master of

Jardine, Sir J.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Jenkins, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Erskine, David C.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Brace, William

Esslemont, George Birnie

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Evans, Samuel T.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Branch, James

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Brigg, John

Everett, R. Lacey

Jowett, F. W.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Ferens, T. R.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Brodie, H. C.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Kekewich, Sir George

Brooke, Stopford

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Bryce, J. Annan

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Laidlaw, Robert

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lambert, George

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fullerton, Hugh

Lamont, Norman

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gill, A. H.

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Gladstone, Rt. HnHerbert John

Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Byles, William Pollard

Glover, Thomas

Lehmann, R. C.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Levy, Maurice

Lewis, John Herbert

Partington, Oswald

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Lough, Thomas

Paul, Herbert

Snowden, P.

Lundon, W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Lupton, Arnold

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stanger, H. Y.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Stanley Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Lynch, H. B.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Stewart Halley (Greenock)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Strachey Sir Edward

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Maclean, Donald

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

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Summerbell, T.

M'Callum, John M.

Radford, G. H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

M'Crae. George

Raphael, Herbert H.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thorne, William

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Mansfield, H. Kendall (Lincoln)

Rees, J. D.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Marnham, F. J.

Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th)

Verney, F. W.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Massie, J.

Richardson, A.

Walters, John Tudor

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rickett, J. Compton

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

Menzies, Walter

Ridsdale, E. A.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wardle, George J.

Mond, A.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Waring, Walter

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

Wagon, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Montgomery, H. G.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Robinson, S.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Morrell, Philip

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Whitbread, Howard

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Munaghan, George

Rose, Charles Day

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Murphy, John

Rowlands, J.

Whitehead, Rowland

Murray, James

Runciman, Walter

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Myer, Horatio

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Wiles, Thomas

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilkie, Alexander

Nolan, Joseph

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

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

Nuttall, Harry

Sears, J. E.

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Seaverns, J. H.

Winfrey, R,

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Shackleton, David James

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sherwell, Arthur James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

O' Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Bill read the third time, and passed.

MR. STANLEY WILSON:, on a point of' order, asked whether his vote could be recorded. He passed through the lobby door, and the tellers had already gone before his vote was recorded.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should have been rather more rapid.
MR. STANLEY WILSON: I received no warning that the discussion had been concluded. The other lobby had not been cleared before I passed out.
MR. J. A. PEASE: I called "door, door" to the
1608
whip on the other side, and he announced to me that the lobby had been cleared. I, therefore, came away from the door.
MR. PIKE PEASE MR. PIKE PEASE (Darlington) rose.
*MR. SPEAKER: There is no use in continuing the discussion. Another time the hon. Member for Holderness must get through the lobby rather more quickly.
MR. STANLEY WILSON: May I respectfully ask whether my vote will be recorded?
*MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member is too late.
MR. BOWLESmoved to insert after the word "time" the words "during the time for opposed business," so that the Standing Order would read, "After a Bill has been read a second time, during the time for opposed business it shall be committed to one of the Standing Committees." He said that the Amendment was suggested to him by the remarks of the Chancellor of the Duchy, who had stated that in any case so far as the Second Reading of a Bill was concerned the House would still have a veto. Unless some provision of this kind was inserted, the House, as a matter of fact, would have no veto at all. If a Bill which was put down for Second Reading was not reached till after eleven o'clock it would go through in the twinkling of an eye should there be no one on the alert and ready to say, "I object." Having in that way got a Second Heading, it would go to a Grand Committee, though had it not come on at the tail end of a long sitting, it would not have obtained a Second Reading. He did not think it was contemplated by the Government that Bills, the Second Reading of which was got in that way should be sent to a Grand Committee. It was important to safeguard the veto of the House on Bills in danger of accidentally slipping through the Second Reading stage at a late hour, and when no debate could by the rules of the House occur.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYseconded the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had already pointed out that if any section of the House desired to break down the work of the Grand Committees it would only be necessary to allow various Second
1610
Readings to pass after eleven o'clock. In that way the work of the Grand Committees would accumulate, and there would be no practical result. It would be in the interest of the business of the House that that possibility of obstructing measures should be removed. He thought all Members should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions at some early stage of a Bill. Unless the House adopted the Amendment, Members might not have such an opportunity until the Report stage.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 1, after the word 'time,' to insert the words 'during the nine for opposed business.' "—(.Mr. Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANopposed the Amendment. If a Bill came up for Second Reading after the time for opposed business, a Member had only to say "I object" in order to stop the Bill. He could not accept the proposition that a Bill which passed the Second Reading without opposition should not go to a Grand Committee.
Sir E. CARSONsaid a Member might be willing to let the Second Reading go through, but wish to discuss certain details, and he might not have any opportunity at all of being on the Committee. Small Bills which might be very useful would be put an end to by this procedure. He believed the rule would work out in a way entirely different from what had been anticipated.
LORD R. CECILsaid there was a point which had not been touched upon in the debate. In the case of a highly contentious Bill under discussion at ten minutes to five on a Friday afternoon,

1611
the closure might be moved and accepted. There would be a division on the closure, and another division on the Second Reading at ten minutes past five. The Second Reading might be carried by a small majority, and under present circumstances the House would never think of sending it to a Grand Committee. But under this rule it would necessarily go to a Grand Committee. In the case of a private Member's Bill, the only way to prevent that would be for the Government to give an opportunity on some other occasion to move that it be not sent to a Grand Committee. In the case of Government measures it was a common thing for the Second Reading to take place after eleven o'clock. Each of these Bills would in future go to a Grand Committee, although the Government might not desire it. It might therefore be necessary to make a Motion on a subsequent day in order to prevent its being sent to a Grand Committee. But the House would not necessarily have the right of vetoing a Bill going to a Grand Committee It would entirely depend on whether a Motion could be brought on at a later stage to determine whether that could be prevented or not. Surely therefore, the Amendment was necessary.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Prime Minister, in refusing to accept the Amendment of his right hon. friend, stated that he did not want to draw a distinction between private Member's Bills and Government Bills. He thought that was such an excellent argument that he voted with the Prime Minister on that occasion. He did not want the Prime Minister to be inconsistent. If the Amendment was not accepted there would be no opportunity for anyone after eleven o'clock to state his reasons why a Bill should not be sent to one of the Grand
1612
Committees. It was quite true that on the following day a Motion could be made if the Government gave time, but they all knew that the Government would not give time. The result would be that if this Rule were agreed to no private Member's Bill would be passed. Under these circumstances, although personally he was not much in favour of private Member's Bills, he believed the rule to be disadvantageous.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not rise to discuss a question of policy, but what he wanted to know was how the Government thought their Resolution would operate. He would take a case familiar to the whole House. Supposing a Bill were discussed from twelve o'clock to ten minutes to five on the Friday, followed by a division on the closure and a division on the Bill, it would be by that time ten minutes past five o'clock; and the Bill would automatically go up to the Grand Committee. It could not be brought back, except by a new Resolution bringing it out of the purgatory of the Grand Committee to the heaven of the whole House. He did not wish to delay the House, but he hoped the Government would give a reply on that point. Suppose it was a Government Bill, and carried by closure, the same thing would happen.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that if the Government were of opinion that a Bill was strongly contested, and should not go upstairs to a Grand Committee, they would make a Motion to that effect immediately after the division on the Second Reading, and that motion would be divided upon at once, and without discussion. [Opposition cries of "It cannot be done."]
LORD E. CECILsaid that in future the Motion that a Bill be not referred to

1613
a Grand Committee would be in the same position as the Motion now to refer a Bill to a Standing Committee.
Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that his right hon. friend had stated the intentions of the Government. If they were not carried out by the words of the Resolution on the Paper, Amendments would be proposed by the Government.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he wished to point out that a greater difficulty might arise at the end of a Second Reading debate. A Motion might be made by the Government to except the Bill, and another by a private Member to send some portions of the Bill to the Grand Committee, and retain the remainder of the measure for the consideration of the Committee of the whole House. It was quite evident that some provision must be made for the consideration of that important point.
MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid that the Government seemed to have got themselves into some difficulty, and in order to give them a chance of thinking over their proposals again, he moved the adjournment of the debate.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYseconded the Motion.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
As amended, considered.
*Sir CHARLES DILKEsaid that on the Second Reading two questions were raised by himself and other hon. Members
1614
for the consideration of the Secretary of State for War. The first point was met by an Amendment of his right hon. friend on the Committee Stage, and he now proposed to raise briefly only the second question. Many hon. Members would remember that for many years past, whatever Government was in power, some of them had raised questions on this Bill affecting not only legislation by reference, but something much worse than legislation by reference, because the liberty of the subject was more concerned by this measure than perhaps by any other legislation which could come before the House. This was not an ordinary Bill, but it legislated by reference not to other Acts of Parliament but to rules which might be altered by the Secretary of State for War. He proposed to omit in this clause words which gave powers wholly indefinite to persons who were not necessarily in a responsible position and who were unknown to the House. It would be necessary to search through 1300 pages of small type to find out all the Rules and Orders referred to in the original Statute, and this Bill proposed to re-enact the original Statute with Amendments which made the law harsher and more vague than it was before. He proposed to omit in Clause 10 the words which would give to assistant provost-marshals the powers of governors of military prisons, conferred from time to time by the Secretary of State. Those powers might be altered and the provost-marshal need not necessarily be a responsible person. He believed that during the late war persons were appointed as provost-marshals who were civilians. In debate certain questions were put to his right hon. friend which, as regarded himself and the future, must be looked upon as a satisfactory assurance, but he wished to press upon the

1615
House the advantage of caution in legislating upon a subject which was so dangerous to personal liberty. His right hon. friend, as he understood him, promised that a Committee should sit at once and that a code of Rules should be drawn up, and that Parliament should be made acquainted with those Rules. He understood his right hon. friend to undertake that those Rules should not be lightly set aside; that was to say that, although they would not be of a statutory character, they would be permanent as far as his right hon. friend was concerned. There was something further, however, which he had to ask for, and that was as to the unknown persons who exercised these powers of assistant provost-marshals. During the late war they were appointed in a hap-hazard manner and there was nothing to prevent them from being persons of no high authority. He therefore thought that before they passed the Bill through this stage they ought to have an assurance from his right hon. friend not only as to the character of the Rules but as to the persons who should exercise these powers. He moved in Clause 10, page 5, line 32 to leave out the words "and his assistants."
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 10, page 5, line 32, to leave out the words "and his assistants."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane,)explained that in the field in time of war, when the duties of the provost-marshal came into operation, it was impossible for that officer to discharge all the functions himself. The theatre of war might extend over hundreds of miles, and he must
1616
have assistants. Who those assistants were to be must be determined by the authorities on the spot. The best was done in the circumstances, but it was one of the disagreeable incidents of war that arrangements were constantly thrown into confusion. To leave sufficient latitude he had agreed to lay the Rules on the Table, and if any subsequent alterations were made those also would be laid on the Table. No doubt in time of war the best people were not always selected for this and other positions, but the best would be done that circumstances would allow.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsuggested that the Rule should be to appoint as assistant provost-marshals commissioned officers not below the rank of captain. That being the rule, exceptions might be allowed when circumstances demanded them.
MR. HALDANEpromised to endeavour to see that assistants should be always commissioned officers unless in exceptional cases, and where possible of the rank of captain.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

IRISH TOBACCO BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.