Commons Sitting of 6 May 1907

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, 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.:—King Edward's Hospital Fund for London Bill [Lords]; Royal Bank of Scotland Bill [Lords]; Southend Water Bill [Lords]; Birmingham Corporation Water Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time,
  Bristol Corporation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Baines' Name Bill [Lords]; Burnham (Somerset) Pier Bill [Lords]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill. Reported [Parties do not proceed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petition of the Personal Rights Association, Sarum and Wilts, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Langside, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Middleton Cheney; and, Swayfield; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petitions for legislation; From Swindon; and, Highworth; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3773 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BEARD (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Twelfth Annual Report of the Local Government Beard for Scotland, 1906 [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1897.
  Copy presented, of Ninth Annual Report of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Board to the Secretary for Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Reports, Statistics, etc., on Continuation Classes and Central Institutions (Scotland), 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALIENS ACT, 1905.
  Copy presented, of First Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector under the Aliens Act (Part I.), and a Statement with regard to the Expulsion of Aliens (Part II.), in respect of the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquess of Bath, preserved at Longleat, Wiltshire, Vol. II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table,
  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Portland, K.G., preserved at Welbeck Abbey, Vol. VIII. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  Copy presented, of Return showing; (1) the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, Estimated Capital Liability in respect of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the Estimated Assets, and the Exchequer Balances at the close of each financial year from 1835–6 to 1906–7, both inclusive; and (2) the Gross and Net Expenditure charged annually during that period against the Public Revenue on account of the National Debt, and other Payments connected with Capital Liabilities [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) PENSION FUND.
  Annual Accounts presented, of Receipts and Payments for the year ended 31st December, 1906, [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 30th April, 1907, declaring that Frederick Campion, Forger, King's Yard, Gibraltar, War 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.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum of Evidence contained in Parliamentary Papers as to the Demand for Allotments and Small Holdings, and as to the difficulty of obtaining land for those
  1302
  purposes [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRANSVAAL.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to the Introduction of Chinese Labourers into the Transvaal in excess of the number of Licences issued [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (EXCISE COMMITTEE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 18th April; Mr. Herbert Roberts]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Mr. Delmege's Glensharrold Estate
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the estate of Mr. James O'Grady Delmege, situate at Glensharrold, in the county of Limerick, is in the Land Judge's Court; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken to bring about a sale of it to the tenants under the Land Act of 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The registrar of the Land Judge's Court informs me that no proceedings are pending in that court for the sale of the estate referred to.

  Irish Money-Lenders
  MR. CARR-GOMM: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the complaints as to the wording of the Money-Lenders Act, 1900, which have been made in many recent cases in the courts; and whether, in view of the increasing number of these cases in all parts of the country and the methods of money-lenders which are being thereby brought under public notice, he will introduce a Bill to amend this Act.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) This matter is under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, with whom the hon. Member would do well to communicate.

  Postage on Christmas Supplements.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the desirability of facilitating the issue of Christmas supplements by weekly newspapers, by the establishment of a special registration fee or otherwise, having regard to the fact that the illustrated and other papers of much greater bulk and weight are conveyed by post without extra cost.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Christmas supplements to registered newspapers are transmissible by the halfpenny newspaper post if they conform to the provisions of the Post Office Act of 1870. The newspaper post is carried on at a considerable loss, and I do not see my way to introducing fresh legislation enlarging its scope.

  Plymouth Post Office Revision.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can say how long it will be before the projected revision at Plymouth will be put into force; and whether he will give instructions for overtime money earned on Easter Sunday to be paid forthwith.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The revision in question is now under consideration, and steps will be taken to carry it out as soon as possible. Instructions had been given for payment of the overtime worked on Easter Sunday before the hon. Member put down his Question, and the men have received the money.

  Mr. Mackay of Brora.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. D. Mackay, of Brora, has applied on two occasions to be furnished with a copy of his record, and has received no reply; and that Mr. Mackay has applied for an overcoat due to him last October, and can get no reply to this application either; and can he explain why those applications have been ignored.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am making inquiry into the matters
  1304
  referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and I will communicate the result to him.

  Boyle Mounted Postman.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. John Ryan, mounted postman, of Boyle, Roscommon, made application for an increased horse allowance a year ago; that although he submitted particulars showing that his allowance was entirely inadequate, and these have been corroborated by departmental inquiries, no reply has yet been given to him; and will he give the matter his prompt and favourable consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Authority has already been given for increasing the allowance made to this postman for the use of a pony, and I have now directed that the increase is to take effect from the date of his application.

  Income Tax Incidence.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it has been the intention in previous Finance Acts to mitigate the effect of the five years average as the basis of assessment to income-tax in the case of commercial concerns producing profits of a fluctuating character, especially when an average was sought to be attained by adding the higher profits of past years to diminishing profits of declining businesses; whether he will consider the propriety of substituting for the clause to be omitted some more effective remedy for the admitted hardships of the rigid application of the five years average system; and whether, in considering this question, he will have regard also to the amount of the deductions which ought to be allowed from gross profits before fixing their value for assessment, in respect of such things as depreciation of plant and machinery, or the replacement of capital expended in the acquisition of such things as leasehold interests in property, or mines liable to be exhausted in a short period of years.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) No such intention is within. my knowledge. The

  1305
  various considerations to which reference is made in the Question as bearing upon the assessment of profits were al fully considered by Lord Ritchie's Committee, and are discussed in Parts V. and VI. of the Committee's Report [Cd, 2575]. It may be added that the period over which an average is taken is three years for most trading concerns, and is extended to five years only in the case of mines.

  Madras Estates Land Bill.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Madras Government has under consideration the question of compensating landowners for the universal occupancy right conceded to their tenants by the Madras Estates Land Bill; whether that Bill takes power to Government to revise rents in zemindaris; if so, whether the Bill contains any provision that such power of revision shall not be exercised without the previous sanction of the Governor General in Council; and, if not, whether he will explain why the ancient zemindars of Madras are to be placed in this respect in an inferior position to the statute-created landlords of Bengal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Bill to which the hon. Member refers is at present under my consideration, and I am not in a position at the present stage to make any statement as to its provisions.

  Mr. Langley's Gortnahoe Estate.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the estate of Henry Oliver Langley, of Longford Pass, parish of Gortnahoe, county Tipperary, is sold to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, what steps are being taken to reinstate Michael Morris and Edward Kealy, two evicted tenants on the property.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the estate referred to has not been sold to them, but they are negotiating with Mr. Langley for the purchase of certain untenanted lands on his property at. Longford Pass. The
  1306
  Commissioners have received their inspector's report on the application of Michael Morris for reinstatement, and it is under consideration. Edward Kealy's application has been referred to an inspector for inquiry, but his report has not yet been received.

  Military Offences among Cavalrymen.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can throw light on the causes of the apparent increase of military offences in the cavalry of the line as compared with the decrease in the Army generally.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is very difficult to state exactly the causes of the increase mentioned, which is not a large increase, amounting to forty-eight out of a total of 607. The number of recruits taken last year was 3,664,as compared with 2,375 in the previous year, and this increase in the number of men just beginning their service would appear to have had a corresponding result in respect of military offences.

  Militia Reserve.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House what is to be the future of the Reserve Division of Militia, of which the strength is shown as 7,783 on 1st October last; whether it is still intended that it shall disappear; and whether in the meantime it is to be attached to the Territorial Army in Great Britain and to the Militia in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) All the engagements for this Reserve have been stopped, except for the men from the Royal Garrison Regiment. These latter are discharged from this Reserve as soon as they have made up the qualified term for pension. This Reserve accordingly will gradually disappear. It will remain as an independent force till it dies out.

  Army Finance.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether moneys required for the Territorial Army under Clause 3 of the Territorial and

  1307
  Reserve Forces Bill will be Army Votes within the accounting charge of the Director of Army Finance as accounting officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The payments to be made to county associations for the purposes of the Territorial Force will be made from Army Votes within the accounting charge of the Director General of Army Finance as accounting officer. Expenditure conducted by the associations will be on a footing similar to that now conducted by Volunteer corps out of their public grants. I hope before long to be able to lay before the House details of what is proposed.

  Territorial Force—Increased Estimate.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he now sees his way to carry out his undertaking, cither by distributing a supplementary document or in some other way, to show contemplated increase on the previous approximate estimate for the Territorial Forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I hope to fulfil this undertaking before the Committee Stage of the Bill is reached.

  New Hebrides Convention.
  MR. WALROND: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations are now in progress with the French Government about the New Hebrides Convention; and when he will lay Papers upon the subject accounting for the delay in dealing with the matter.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The date of the meeting of the Joint Committee to deal with Sub-section 4, of Article 10, will probably be in about a week's time. The date is being arranged to suit the convenience of the Colonial representatives. As regards the labour regulations, it has already been promised that Papers will be laid showing the conditions under which licences will be issued before any recruiting takes place. Till these conditions are finally settled the Papers cannot be laid.

  Committee on the Bankruptcy Laws.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he anticipates the Committee appointed to inquire into the Bankruptcy Laws in England will present its Report; and whether he has any intention of asking the same or another Committee to inquire into the condition of bankruptcy reform in Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I am informed that the Committee hope to conclude the taking of evidence shortly, and the Report will follow in due course. My right hon. friend has no intention of asking a Committee to inquire into the condition of bankruptcy reform in Scotland.

  Bute Licensing Appeals.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the clerk of the Justice of the Peace Court for the county of Bute who advises that court on legal matters upon licensing appeals, is in the habit of attending in the Burgh Licensing Court in support of the application of private individuals for the grant of licences; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent the repetition of such action.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) The disqualification of the clerk to the Justice of Peace Court does not apply by law so as to prevent him acting as solicitor in the Burgh Court. This seems to be the sound construction of Section 106 of the Licensing (Scotland Act, 1903.

  Lord Advocate v. Colonel Balfour.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Lord Advocate if the Government propose to acquiesce in the recent decision, the Lord Advocate v. Colonel Balfour.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) Yes, sir.

  Motor Car Bill.
  MR. WALROND: To ask the President of the Local Government Board

  1309
  when it is proposed to introduce legislation dealing with motor cars.
  (Answered by Dr. Macnamara.) As my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board stated, in reply to a Question last week, he cannot at present make any announcement with regard to this matter.

  Military Drill in Elementary Schools.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the President of the Board of Education does the Education Department adhere to the position in relation to rifle shooting and military drill in public elementary Schools which was explained to the House by his predecessor in October last,† or in what respects, if any, has it been modified.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Lewisham Schools Rifle Association.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the President of the Board of Education is he aware that in the metropolitan borough of Lewisham a school rifle association has been formed; that it has been joined by forty out of forty-three public elementary Schools containing 2,600 boys, and that all these boys, who are over twelve years of age, are required to shoot with miniature rifles; will he say whether these pupils are instructed in the art and inculcated with the duty of killing their fellow men; and whether the cost of such instruction, or any part of it, falls upon the public.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I understand that a school rifle association has been formed, but I have no information as to its membership. No part of the instruction is allowed to be given during school hours or at the public expense.

  Public Elementary School Buildings.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Education when he will introduce the measure legalising the expenditure of public money upon the erection of public elementary Schools.
  † See (4) Debates,clxiii., 704 ·5.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the noble Lord the Member for the Chichester Division on the 18th April last. †

  Education Board—Medical Department.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the President of the Board of Education on what expert opinion Clause 10 of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill was drafted; and whether this expert opinion reported as well upon the necessity of establishing a permanent medical department at the Board of Education, and, if so, what their view of such a medical department was.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Clause 10 of the Administrative Provisions Bill follows precisely the wording of the similar clause in last year's Bill, as amended in Parliament. A considerable volume of expert opinion bearing on the subject will be found in the Reports of the Inter-departmental Committees on Physical Deterioration and on the Medical Inspection and Feeding of School Children which have already been published. I do not think the matters referred to in the last paragraph can be adequately dealt with by means of Question and Answer. There will be an opportunity for discussing them in Committee on the Bill.

  Edinburgh Grassmarket.
  MR. GULLAND: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the town council of Edinburgh proposes to hold a market for sheep and possibly also for cattle in the public street of the Grass market, which is not concreted and in which there is much traffic; and whether the Board of Agriculture proposes to make an order prohibiting such a market, in view of their action at Haddington, where the Board has Objected to the market being held on a street that is not laid with cement, even though it is off the main thoroughfare.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Edinburgh Town Council propose
  †See (4) Debates, clxxii., 1159.

  1311
  as a purely temporary measure, pending the completion of their new market at Gorgie, to make special provision for the accommodation of stock in the Grass market, to be used only on occasions when the accommodation in the present market, part of which is required immediately for the new Art Schools, is insufficient. Steps will be taken to have the surface paved with cement in compliance with the Markets and Sales Orders of 1903 and 1904. In the circumstances, the Board see no reason to object the proposed arrangement. The case of Haddington Market is not a parallel one.

  Agriculture and Fisheries Grant
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, having regard to the fact that the total State grant for the encouragement and development of agriculture and fisheries in Great Britain is less than the 850th part of the estimated national expenditure for the financial year 1907–8, he will take steps to secure an increase in the amount of the said grant.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We shall not hesitate to bring the claims of agriculture and fisheries under the notice of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as occasion arises, but I am afraid that he would not regard the proportion which our Vote bears to the aggregate expenditure of the State as a very cogent argument.

  Lahore Mass Meeting.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the resolutions passed at a mass meeting of Mohammedans at Lahore condemning the recent assaults by natives on Europeans, and calling upon educational authorities to suppress disreputable political excesses amongst students; and, whether the Government of India propose to take, any steps to support the educational authorities in such action.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am aware of the resolutions to which
  1312
  the hon. Member refers. The Government of India are taking measures that will assure to the universities the support of Government in performing their disciplinary functions, and are issuing general instructions to the local governments which I understand will shortly be published.

  Ulster Justices of the Peace
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he could state how many persons were appointed justices of the peace in Ulster from the 31st of January, 1906 to the 31st of March, 1907; how many of the justices so appointed were Catholics; and, whether he would order a Return to be prepared setting forth the names of those appointed, their religious persuasion, and the districts for which they were appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Lord Chancellor informs me that, during the period mentioned in the Question, he signed warrants for the appointment of 241 magistrates for Ulster exclusive of the borough of Belfast, and 136 of these magistrates are believed to be Catholics. During the same period twenty-seven appointments were made to the commission of the peace, for the borough of Belfast, but the Lord Chancellor has no information as to the religious belief of the persons appointed. It would be contrary to practice to grant a Return setting forth the religious persuasion of magistrates individually. The Lord Chancellor also thinks it undesirable to state the petty sessions districts to which individual magistrates have been assigned. The allocation of magistrates to districts is a matter which rests entirely with the Lord Chancellor himself, and he has frequent occasion to vary the districts so assigned.

  Muckross Barytes Mines.
  MR. EDWARD BARRYTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an inspector from the Department of Agriculture visited Barytes mines at Muckross, Clonakilty, some months ago; whether he made a full inspection and Report; and, if so, whether a copy of that Report is available.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Economic Geologist of the Department of Agriculture has made an inspection of the Barytes mine referred to, and has furnished a Report on the subject to the Department. The inspection was undertaken in pursuance of the Department's policy of acquiring information as to the raw material resources of the country. The mine is understood to be the property of a company, and it is not considered desirable to publish Reports on private undertakings of the kind.

  Galway Land Grant Deductions.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the total amount of the loss charged on the county of Galway, and deducted from grants payable to the county council, under the Land Act of 1903; and if he can also give particulars as to how this sum is divided for arrears of annuity, unearned dividend and issue of stock, advanced dividend, interest due but not received and unproductive balances, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The total amount deducted under the Land Act of 1903 from the grants assigned to county Galway was £3,625, consisting of:—

  £

  Arrears of Annuities

  304

  Unearned dividend on issues of stock

  1,274

  Advance dividend

  733

  Interest due but not received

  832

  Unproductive balances

  482

  Land Purchase—Longford Case
  MR. J.P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will explain why the receivable order No. 56/1164 issued to Patrick Casey, Mullaghavourneen, Longford, has been retained by the Land Commission Office in Dublin and has not been returned to Casey, notwithstanding several applications by him; is he aware that in consequence of failure on his part to produce the receivable order his rent would not be taken in the bank, for which a process was then issued and costs put upon him; and will
  1314
  he now direct that this man's original receiving order be returned to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Land Commission inform me that on 10th May, 1906, Mr. Patrick Casey lodged his land purchase instalment due on the 1st of that month, and the receivable order was forthwith returned to him by post, duly receipted. Mr. Casey had not up to March last paid the instalment due on 1st November, 1906, for which a receivable order had been sent to him, and the Land Commission accordingly issued instructions that he should be sued for the amount. On 13th April Mr. Casey remitted the instalment direct to the Land Commission, but kept the receivable order. He has been requested to return the order, but so far has not done so.

  Cavan Urban Council.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when the Local Government Board first received the by-laws submitted by the Cavan Urban District Council since the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898; will he say how many times since by-laws have been submitted by the Cavan Urban Council to the Local Government Board; and in what position the matter now stands.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Three sets of by-laws relating to different matters were first submitted by the Cavan Urban District Council to the Local Government Board on 10th August, 1901. Three other sets of by-laws were submitted on 30th January, 1902, and another set on 21st July, 1904. I am forwarding to the hon. Member a statement showing the dates upon which the various steps in connection with these by-laws were taken, and the present position of the matter in each case.

  Irish Poor Law Administration.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Government intend to give effect, by legislation or otherwise, to the findings of the Committee appointed to inquire into the

  1315
  working of the Poor Law system of Ireland, whose Report is awaited with anxiety by the people of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Report to which the hon. Member refers has been presented to Parliament. The Government deem it necessary to consider carefully the recommendations of the Commission as a whole before undertaking legislation to give effect to them. As I have already indicated, this will take a considerable time, and I do not, therefore, expect to be able in the near future to make any definite statement on the subject.

  Rathkeale District Council.
  MR. ARKWRIGHT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a memorial forwarded to the Local Government Board by forty-one ratepayers in the Lismakeery electoral division, charging the Rathkeale District Council with extravagance and corruption, and inviting the Local Government Board to dissolve the said district council, and to substitute paid guardians for that body; whether the sworn testimony upon which these charges are based has received attention; and what reply has been sent by the Local Government Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have received the memorial referred to, and, in accordance with their usual practice, have, as a preliminary measure, forwarded it to the rural district council for their observations. The Board have not yet received a reply from the council, but upon receiving it will consider what action should be taken. The Board, However, have no power to dissolve a rural district council as suggested by the memorialists. The second part of the Question appears to refer to an inquiry which was recently held as to the manner in which the council's engineer has discharged his duties under the council's last scheme. At this inquiry some general evidence was given regarding the complicity of councillors in the contracts for the scheme. This matter is also receiving consideration.

  Irish Post Office Stores Branches
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the local post office store branches in Dublin, Belfast, and Cork, have been abolished, and a new central department created in Dublin to take their place, and that the Irish clerks in the former blanches were informed they could not obtain appointments under the new departments, he will state how they have been provided for; and whether a portion of the staff has been imported.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The formation of the new central stores branch in Dublin is still under consideration, and in the circumstances I am not yet in a position to state what the composition of the staff will be. As I said on the 18th April, in reply to the hon. Member for North Kilkenny, full regard will be had to the claims of the existing staff, and there is no question of dispensing with the services of any of them, or of reducing their pay.

  Special Courts for Juvenile Offenders.
  MR. J. W. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the convictions of children in twenty-nine borough courts, whether he can state how many, and which, of the authorities hold special courts for the trial of youthful offenders; and whether he has any information with regard to the holding of such special courts in other urban areas or counties.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Full information about the arrangements made for dealing with children's cases is given in the Return headed Treatment of Youthful Offenders, which was published in March last (H. C. 84).

  Bishopstoke Church.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, when the new church at Bishopstoke, Hampshire, was substituted for the old it was legally consecrated; and, if not, whether he will take steps to have this done.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am informed that, when the new church was substituted for the old, it had already been consecrated.

  Dumbarton Church Dispute
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the sum of £l,400, which Lord Overtoun along with Colonel Denny offered through the Churches Commission towards Free Church accommodation in Dumbarton, and to which the Commission proposed to give effect, is the proceeds of sale of an old Free Church property in Dumbarton, and that the property mentioned was left in trust, the proceeds from rent of same to be paid annually to the Minister of the Free Church in Dumbarton; and whether, in view of this fact, he will call the attention of the Churches Commission to this proposed diversion of a trust fund.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Commission, I have no doubt, are fully informed upon this matter, but I shall be glad to lay before them the substance of the observations contained in the hon. Member's Question.

  Saturday Half-Holidays for Civil Servants
  Mr. DELANY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that a weekly Saturday half-holiday is granted in the great majority of public offices, he will take steps to have the Order in Council so amended as to allow of a like privilege being granted in all Government offices.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am not aware that a weekly half-holiday is granted in the great majority of public offices, and I am not prepared to recommend any alterations in the Orders in Council dealing with this matter.

  Irish Government Banking.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give the text of the Act of Parliament constituting the Bank of Ireland the Government banker in Ireland,
  1318
  and if he will state the date up to which this arrangement stands.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Section 10 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, directs that the gross revenues shall be paid to accounts to be entitled '' The Account of His Majesty's Exchequer" at the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland, respectively, and that all other public moneys payable to the Exchequer shall be paid to the same accounts. The Bank of Ireland is thus constituted the Government Banker in Ireland, so far as the business of the Exchequer is concerned. The arrangement is not limited as to time. Various Acts relating to the National Debt provide for the Government stocks being transferable in the books of the Bank of Ireland, and for the dividends being paid at that bank. The National Debt Act, 1870, may be cited; and, as regards the particular case of Guaranteed 2 ¾per cent. Stock, the Irish Land Act, 1903, Section 31. The Bank Act, 1892, fixes the rate of remuneration payable to the Bank of Ireland for management of the National Debt inscribed in its books. That rate was determined as the result of an inquiry which took into account the work done by the bank in management of the Public Accounts, as well as of the National Debt, and also the benefit to the bank of the use of Government balances. The Act continues in force the rate so fixed up to 31st March, 1912.

  Customs Promotions.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury hew many cases of special promotion have occurred in the Customs Department since the date of the Treasury Minute of 31st March, 1891, and in what numbers and to what rank respectively, were the promotions made; and whether the conditions laid down in the Treasury Minute with regard to special promotion have been observed in all cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Speaking generally, all appointments in the direct line of promotion in the Custom service since 1891 have been made by merit and seniority combined, the

  1319
  degree of merit required increasing in accordance with the importance of the position to be filled. This is in accordance with the general rules laid down for the outdoor establishment in the Goschen Minute of 1891. If the hon. Member has any special class or individual in view, and would care to communicate with the Commissioners of Customs, they will be happy to give any further explanations he may desire, either in writing or verbally.

  Unfunded Debt.
  MR. ASHTON (Bedfordshire, Luton): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present amount of the unfunded debt; of what issues does it consist; and what were the issues of the unfunded debt at the same time last year.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The unfunded debt at the present date amounts to £50,674,500; on the 6th May last year it amounted to £62,713,000, made up as follows:—

  6th May, 1906.

  6th May, 1907.

  £

  £

  Treasury bills

  17,213,000

  10,713,000

  Exchequer bends

  15,500,000

  9,961,500

  War stock and War bends

  30,000,000

  30,000,000

  62,713,000

  50,674,500

  Irish Government Bank Deposits.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the advantage derived from the arrangement made by his predecessor for the payment of interest on the credit balances and deposits of Irish Government Departments in Ireland, he will arrange for the payment by the Bank of England of interest on all moneys due to or coming from Ireland from the 31st March last.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The circumstances of the two banks are not the same. The Bank of Ireland, as I understand, allows deposit interest on other accounts, and was able therefore to extend the same treatment to certain Government accounts without an in
  1320
  fraction of its rules. The Bank of England never allows interest on deposits.

  The Chief of Aundh
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Chief of Aundh, now under trial on charges preferred against him by the political agent, before a Commission composed of ten European members of the Civil Service, has appealed to the Government to appoint another ruling chief on the Commission in the place of the Chief of Bhor, who has resigned; and, if so, what answer has been returned to his appeal; and whether he will take steps to secure that some Indian chief, or, at all events, some Indian gentleman of good position, should be added to the Commission should the accused desire it.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Commission appointed to try the Chief of Aundh on a charge of instigating one Perga Manga to collect men and, with their aid, to commit a dacoity in the Kharbari's house and to murder him, consisted of two European members of the Indian Civil Service, Messrs. Logan and Kincaid and the Chief of Bhor. The Chief of Bhor having withdrawn from the Commission on the day before that fixed for the sittings to commence, the Bombay Government declined to entertain a request from the Chief of Aundh for the appointment of another chief, owing to the difficulty of finding an Indian of suitable rank willing to accept the invidious responsibility of sitting on a Commission of the kind, and to the grave inconvenience that would be caused by a postponement of the hearing at such short notice. The Commission completed its sittings on the 4th instant. I see no reason in the report which has been furnished me by telegraph for the Government of Bombay to interfere with their discretion in the matter. Aundh is a petty Satara Jaghirdar with an area of 447 square miles.

  Madras Landed Estates Bill.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, among the zemindaris affected by the Madras Landed Estates Bill are included any in respect of which the Court of Wards occupies a fiduciary position; whether such court is,

  1321
  in fact, officially subordinate to the Madras Government; if so, whether minors seized of such estates are sufficiently represented in regard to interests which may be, and which, it is asserted, are prejudicially affected by the Bill now before the Legislative Council of the said Government; and, whether, in these circumstances, he will arrange that such minors, if any, shall receive separate and independent representation during the passage of the said Bill through the Legislative Council of the said Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Madras Estates Land Bill purports to declare and determine the conditions of tenancy in permanently settled estates in the Madras Presidency. It is of general application to all such estates, whether they are for the time being under the management of the proprietors themselves or under that of the Court of Wards. The interests of minors are not exceptionally affected so as to require separate representation on the legislative council. Permanently settled proprietors are already represented on the council. I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

  Irish Education Fines.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by what authority has a circular been issued to magistrates adjudicating at Petty Sessions directing them to allow only a fraction of the lines imposed on defaulters under the Irish Education Act to the relief of the local authority, and not the whole fine as directed by Section 3 of the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The circular in question, which calls attention to the law as to the disposal of fines under the Irish Education Act, 1892, was issued by the Registry of Petty Sessions Clerks. For full particulars I beg to refer to my Answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Carlow on 18th March. †

  Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  † See (4) Debates, clxxi., 443.
  1322
  Ireland whether he can state what causes the delay in the sale of the Caldbeck estate, Ballacolla, Queen's County; and, in view of the fact that the agreements were signed so far back as December, 1904, and that four inspectors have since visited the property, will he see that steps are taken to expedite the sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are now in a position to make a formal proposal for the purchase of the estate referred to, and they hope to transmit their offer to the owner in the course of a few days.

  Irish National School Inspections.
  MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether national school teachers are allowed by the Commissioners of National Education to appeal against an inspection; and if he can state now how many applications for re-inspection were received during the past year, and how many re-inspections were ordered by the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, under their regulations, any teacher who feels aggrieved by the conduct of the inspector can appeal through the manager to the Commissioners. When such an appeal is made, the Commissioners carefully consider all the circumstances of the case, and, if they deem it necessary, they instruct one of the senior or chief inspectors to visit the school and make a special report. The Commissioners are unable to say hew many applications for re-inspection were received from teachers during the past year. In order to do so a close scrutiny of all the letters received from teachers would be necessary. The Commissioners, However, are prepared to report upon any specific case which the hon. Member may have in view.

  Kenmare's Evicted Tenant
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of Mr. Daniel O'Shea, an evicted tenant on the estate of Lord Kenmare, county Kerry, the Estates Commissioners are aware of the last offer on the part of the landlord

  1323
  as to reinstatement; and whether the Commissioners can now reopen negotiations to enable Mr. O'Shea to be put back in his farm, which is unoccupied.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into this case, and as a result have intimated to the owner's agent the amount which they are prepared to advance for the purchase of the holding. The Commissioners have not yet heard whether the landlord is prepared to accept the offer.

  De Montalt Estate, Dundrum.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have purchased the unteuanted lands on the De Montalt estate, Dundrum, county Tipperary; if applications for the lands received from evicted tenants in the immediate district, in deference to the public opinion of the locality, will have priority over claimants from other parts of the country, and whether the Commissioners, in order to avoid anything in the nature of friction, will reinstate the evicted tenants of county Tipperary to any lands in their possession before introducing applicants from other counties.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of this estate under Section 6 of the Act of 1903. In the event of their acquiring the property they will, when disposing of the untenanted land, give prior consideration to the applications of evicted tenants resident in the neighbourhood.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    "The Mikado."
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether naval bands have been forbidden to play any selections from "The Mikado "; and, if so, will he explain the reason for this prohibition.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The license for the play was withdrawn by the Lord Chamberlain, who
    1324
    asked that instructions should be given to all naval and marine bands to exclude from their musical programmes any music of "The Mikado" during the visit of His Imperial Highness the Prince Fushimi of Japan to this country.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman state more fully the grounds on which the Admiralty came to this extraordinary decision?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have stated fully the grounds.
    MR. GEORGE FABER: May I ask whether there is any buffoonery in the music?
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the Government reconsider their decision?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Admiralty are alone concerned in this matter, and they will not reconsider their decision.

    Stores for the Australian Squadron.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if Australian tenders for the supply of stores required for the Australian squadron will be accepted; and if sufficient time will be given to those desiring to tender in Australia so that they may have a proper chance of competing with tenders from England.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: In the case of provisions, coals, and other commodities produced in or largely imported into Australia, a large proportion of the stores required for the Australian squadron are obtained under contracts made on the station with local firms. Other descriptions of stores not produced in or imported to any considerable extent into Australia are sent out from England; there would be no object in asking Australian firms to tender for these. From time to time as new trades develop in Australia, the list of stores purchased locally is revised.

    Government Contract Specifications.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that

    1325
    Sir John Jackson, the Government contractor for the works at Keyham Harbour, wrote on the 1st of January, 1906, to the effect that under present changed conditions Government contractors for the Admiralty would now be able to buy chains, anchors, fittings, screws, engines, machinery, furniture, ropes, and a hundred and one things for making warships from foreign countries made by foreign workmen, he will say whether any other articles, as well as stone for British dockyards, can be used by contractors to the Admiralty for anything connected with the British Navy which are not of British manufacture and material; and whether contractors are allowed to sub-let their contracts; and, if so, what conditions are made to prevent the sub-contractors from using anything except British material manufactured by British workmen.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No such letter appears to have reached the Admiralty so far as I can ascertain. If the hon. Member will furnish me with a copy I will give it my attention.
    MR. HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the fact of the letter having been written?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have never seen the letter and cannot dispute it, but if the hon. Member will send mo a copy I will give it my best attention.

    New Cavalry Sword.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER - GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the pattern of the new cavalry sword has yet been decided on.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): No decision has as yet been reached. A number of the swords of the pattern, recommended will, it is hoped, shortly be in the hands of the troops for trial.
    MR. ASHLEY: How long has the subject been under discussion, and when may a decision be expected?
    MR. HALDANEwas understood to reply that the swords would be issued in About a week's time.

    Cavalry for Scotland.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER - GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make any statement with regard to allocating a brigade of three cavalry regiments or any other force of regular cavalry to Scotland.
    MR. HALDANE: No decision has yet been arrived at.

    New Bayonet.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the pattern for the new bayonet to be issued to the troops has yet been decided on.
    MR. HALDANE: The reply is in the negative. Patterns of new bayonets are still being tried by the troops, and it is hoped that reports will shortly be received.

    Camp and Messing Allowances.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the messing and camp allowance of 1s. a day per man, to be granted to the commanding officer of a battalion of Territorial Infantry when in camp, will be expended at the discretion of the commanding officer; or whether this grant will be subject to regulations made by the Army Council as to the manner of its use.
    MR. HALDANE: The messing and camp allowance will be paid to the commanding officer, to be expended by him for the benefit of the corps. Regulations regarding its issue will be formulated in due course

    Soldiers' Walking-out Uniform.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask tin Secretary of State for War whether the clothing provided for the territorial soldier at the public cost will include a walking-out uniform.
    MR. HALDANE: The question is under consideration.

    Lance-Corporals.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether separation allowance will be given to lance-corporals of the Territorial Army when in camp.
    MR. HALDANE: If it be found necessary to create lance appointments, the lance corporal, being a non-commissioned officer, will be entitled to separation allowance on the same terms as other non-commissioned officers.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the indecision due to any doubt if there will be lance appointments?
    MR. HALDANE: That is one of the points under consideration.
    MR. ASHLEY: Who will decide it—the Army Council or the commanding officers?
    MR. HALDANE: The Army Council.

    Military Expenditure.
    MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the increase on military and naval expenditure in 1904 compared with that in 1894, including revenue intercepted and not paid into the Exchequer.
    MR. HALDANE: The gross Army expenditure in the financial years 1894–5 and 1904–5, inclusive of loan expenditure and without deducting appropriation in aid was as follows:—1894–5; £21,352,560; 1904–5, £36,478,082; showing an increase of £15,125,522. As regards the naval expenditure I must ask my hon. friend to refer to my right hon. friend for the figures.
    MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the increase or decrease on military and naval expenditure in the year 1905 and in 1906 compared with the expenditure in 1904, taking into account expenditure out of revenue intercepted and not paid into the Exchequer.
    MR. HALDANE: The gross Army expenditure in the financial years 1903–4, 1904–5, and 1905–6, inclusive of Military Works Loan Expenditure and without deducting appropriation in aid, was as follows:—1903–4, £46,698,020; 1904–5, £36,478,082; 1905–6, £33,331,226, showing decreases as compared with 1903–4 of £10,219,938 in 1904–5, and of £13,366,794 in 1905–6. The figures for
    1328
    1906–7 are not yet available. As regards the naval expenditure, I must ask my hon. friend to refer to my right hon. friend for the figures.

    Engineering Staff.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any arrangements have you been made to improve the position of surveyors and assistant surveyors of the staff for engineer services as regards pay and promotion, travelling allowances, and compensation for removals.
    MR. HALDANE: The whole question is still under consideration.

    Regimental Adjutants.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the approximate estimated increase in cost by retaining regimental adjutants belonging to the Regular Forces for the Territorial Force, as compared with the approximate estimate for regimental adjutants contained in Army Paper [Cd. 3296].
    MR. HALDANE: If all the adjutants for the Territorial Force included in Paper [Cd. 3296] were regular officers the increase of cost including non-effective charges would be about £140,000.

    Army Nomenclature.
    SIR C. HILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the existing titles of Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers will be retained when the force contemplated under the Territorial Forces Bill has been constituted.
    MR. HALDANE: The question of the nomenclature of the units of the Territorial Forces has not yet been settled.

    Camp Messing Allowances
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the resulting cost to the State of the proposed messing allowance to men of the Territorial Force if the whole force should go into camp for fifteen days annually, as compared with the sum estimated for in Army Paper [Cd. 3296].
    MR. HALDANE: If the whole force given in Paper Cd. 3296 were to go into Camp for 15 days, the excess cost would be about £170,000 a year.
    MR. LEE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the Territorial Army will go into camp for more than the minimum period?
    MR. HALDANE: I do not estimate anything of the sort. £170,000 is the excess cost if the men go into camp for the fifteen days.

    Piershill and Maryhill Barracks
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Scots Greys will leave Piershill and Maryhill Barracks.
    MR. HALDANE: The regiment will leave these barracks about 22nd May. Part of the regiment will go to take part in the manœuvres.
    MR. WATT: Will another regiment of cavalry be sent to Maryhill Barracks?
    MR. HALDANE: I should think not.

    The County Associations and the Reduction of the Auxiliary Forces.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that the responsibility for reducing the Auxiliary Forces by some 74,000 men will fall upon the county associations, he can arrange to inform those associations, at an early date, what the probable requirements for each locality will be, in order that the necessary reductions may take place partly by stopping recruiting forthwith, in order to reduce to a minimum the number of units which will have to be ultimately disbanded and the number of individual men who will have to be dismissed.
    MR. HALDANE: As I have already indicated to the House, the introduction of the measures contemplated in the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill can only be very gradual, and every association will be given ample time to conform the organisation of the forces in its area to the General Staff scheme. I must not
    1330
    be taken to agree with the hon. and gallant Member in his description of the character of the reorganisation.

    Work for Woolwich.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any orders for war material for the Army or Navy hitherto intended for the private establishments have been diverted to Woolwich in order to arrest discharges of men; and whether a large order for lyddite shell has recently been placed with Woolwich.
    MR. HALDANE: With regard to most of the stores required by the Army and Navy no fixed proportion for dividing orders between the Ordnance Factories and the private trade has ever been laid down, and the allocation is determined year by year as appears best in accordance with the public interests. Where a definite proportion has been laid down in the past, it has not been departed from on the present occasion. The bulk of the orders for lyddite shell are allotted this year to the Ordnance Factories, but on some other descriptions of shell the greater share will almost certainly go to the private trade.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Have the Admiralty been asked to give to Woolwich orders intended for private firms?
    Mr. HALDANE: There have been negotiations with the Admiralty with a view to getting as much work as possible for Woolwich.

    Lyddite Shell Manufacture at Woolwich.
    MR.BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a large number of lyddite shell, under recent orders given to Woolwich, were rejected; and, if so, what percentage of the number under examination at the time.
    MR. HALDANE: Some 12 pr. lyddite shells made in the Ordnance Factories have recently been rejected for flaws due to defects in material supplied by the trade. The examination and investigation are, However, not yet completed.
    MR. BELLAIRS: What was the proportion rejected?
    MR. HALDANE: I cannot say off-hand.

    The Rioting at Rawalpindi.
    MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)asked the Secretary of State for India whether he could give the House any information regarding the riot reported from Rawalpindi; whether the disturbance was connected with the prosecution of the proprietor and editor of the Punjabi newspaper, who made a false charge of murder against an innocent Englishman, and sentences were passed by the local magistrate, against the alleged severity of which complaints were made in Questions by certain Members of this House; whether such sentences had been subsequently reduced, and, if so, to what extent upon appeal; whether the final Court of Appeal had adjudicated upon this case, and, if so, with what result; and whether the Government of India had expressed any intention of taking measures to suppress sedition, which was being fomented by agitators in the Punjaub and elsewhere in India.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,)said that the Answer to the first Question was in the negative; there was no reason to associate the one with the other. The duration of the sentences had been reduced on appeal; but the last Question of the hon. Member was wholly superfluous and required no Answer whatever.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was still sceptical as to there being any unrest in India.
    SIR H. COTTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could make a statement for the information of the House as to the circumstances which had led to the recent disturbance at Rawalpindi.
    MR. MORLEY: I think the House will desire the latest information I have regarding those occurrences. I have received a telegram, which was sent from Simla on 5th May, and reached the India Office last night, from the Viceroy, which states that "On 21st April a meeting was held at Rawalpindi, said to have been attended by 8,000 or 10,000 men. A well-known pleader presided, and
    1332
    another pleader spoke on the subject of increased land revenue and the prosecution of the Punjabi newspaper." Perhaps I was wrong in saying that there was no connection between those disturbances and the prosecution, but it is the opinion of the Government of India that there is no connection. One speaker said the people of the Punjaub must be prepared to; sacrifice their lives for the Motherland. Those who were afraid of bloodshed had better go Home. Petitions to the British King were useless. The Punjabis had helped to put down the Mutiny; they were now ill-treated, and were suffering for their base treachery to their own countrymen. Now was the time to resist, and not to be afraid of Martinis and howitzers. The people would withhold payment of the increased land revenue. Another speaker protested against increased land revenue, water rates and forced labour. In consequence of this, the Deputy Commissioner sent notice to the three speakers who took part in the meeting to attend his Court, for the purpose of a public inquiry into the question whether they should be prosecuted for sedition, and have their licences for practice withdrawn. A crowd of students, traders, and shopkeepers assembled at the Court to express sympathy with the pleaders, and were apparently disappointed when informed that the inquiry would not be held. Then followed disturbances. The three pleaders have since been arrested, presumably for abetting the recent disturbances, and have applied to the Chief Court for bail." The telegram adds that the General Officer Commanding has telegraphed that all is now quiet, but that he anticipated further rioting if the Chief Court grants bail. I understand that bail has not been granted. The Government of India do not at present apprehend further rioting, and, of course, the House is well aware that Rawalpindi is one of the strongest garrisons in India.
    CAPTAIN FABER: Was the rioting the result of a feud between Mohammedans and Hindus, or was it solely directed against Europeans?
    MR. MORLEY: I think I must have notice of any further Questions.

    Case of Captain Grogan.
    MR. SMEATON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire, 1 beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the person called Captain Grogan, at Nairobi, holds any military or naval commission from the Crown; whether he is a Justice of the Peace and a visitor of the gaol at Nairobi; and whether, after the conviction and sentence of imprisonment passed upon him for unlawful flogging of native subjects of the King, he will be continued in such offices.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Captain Grogan does not now hold any military or naval commission from the Crown; but he is entitled to describe himself as Captain, as he was granted the honorary rank of Captain in the Army in virtue of his having served as a Captain in an embodied Militia battalion. He is a visiting Justice of Nairobi Gaol, but does not, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, possess any of the other powers belonging to a Justice of the Peace in this country. He will not be continued in the office of visiting Justice.
    MR. SMEATON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the criminal codes in force at Nairobi contain any provision similar to Section 545 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, where by a Court passing judgment of fine may order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied to defray the costs of the prosecution and in compensation for the injury caused by the offence committed, where substantial compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by civil suit; and whether the magistrate at Nairobi who sentenced Captain Grogan and others to fines for unlawful floggings of native subjects of the King did award any compensation to any of the native subjects flogged.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The offence for which Captain Grogan and others have recently been sentenced to fine and imprisonment is that of unlawful assembly, so that the provisions of Section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable, since a civil action could not
    1334
    be brought to recover compensation for I unlawful assembly.
    MR. J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think compensation can be awarded. At any rate it is not usual for the Crown to award it in such cases.
    MR. LEA: What remedy or redress have the natives then?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The remedies the law allows.

    Dinizulu's Libel Action.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to state the facts as to the alleged interference of the Natal Government in the action for libel brought by the chief Dinizulu against his former private secretary.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

    Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division for Shoreditch, I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what was the total number of Chinese coolies repatriated during the last financial year at the expense of the Home Government; and if any portion of the grant voted for that purpose remains unexpended.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Seven hundred and sixty-six coolies were repatriated at the expense of His Majesty's Government during the last financial year. The whole of the grant voted by Parliament for that purpose has been paid out of the Exchequer, but the final accounts of actual expenditure have not yet been received from the Transvaal.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is the cost of the repatriation now paid by the Government?
    MR. CHURCHILL: That matter hardly arises out of the Question on the Paper. The conditions of repatriation were laid down by the Government during the period they were responsible

    1335
    for the Government of the Transvaal, and the work is still proceeding under those regulations. No decision has yet been come to with regard to the present responsibility for the cost, but I hope one will be arrived at in the course of a week.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Were these coolies repatriated, or any of them, because they considered that the terms of service imposed on them amounted to slavery?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Evidently they did not consider the conditions sufficiently attractive to induce them to stay longer.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: How much money did these coolies take back with them to China?
    MR. CHURCHILL: It could not have been much, because one of the conditions of repatriation is that they have not sufficient funds to pay the cost of their return.
    VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if any Chinese coolies will be repatriated during, the present financial year at the expense of the Home Government.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The matter is now under discussion and no decision has yet been reached.

    Admission of Unlicensed Coolies into the Transvaal.
    MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the name of the mine where the 295 Chinese coolies are working in the Transvaal for whom no licences we reissued at the time of landing in South Africa; whether any application has been made to the, responsible authorities for such additional licences to be issued; and what action, if any, has been taken in the matter.
    The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper—.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD: To ask the Under-Secretary
    1336
    of State for the Colonies how many Chinese coolies have been imported into South Africa without licences; whether any of them, and, if so, how many, formed part of those imported by the steamship "Cranley," which left Ching-wang-tao on 27th November last; and whether, in view of the assurance given by him on 10th December last that if it should appear that any of such coolies were not covered by licences, steps would be taken to prevent their landing, he can say why such steps were not in fact taken and by whose authority they were allowed to land.
    MR. SCOTT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on whom should the cost of repatriating the 257 Chinese coolies landed in South Africa without licence fall; and have those responsible been asked to pay for sending them back.
    MR. SCOTT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when did Lord Selborne become aware of the fact that 257 Chinese coolies had arrived in South Africa without licence; was it with Lord Selborne's consent that the coolies were permitted to start work; and, if not, what steps did Lord Selborne take to see that the law was complied with.
    MR. WALSH: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Colonial Office first became aware of the illegal importation of the 259 Chinese coolies; whether those coolies are now receiving any different treatment from the others and whether licences have been issued in respect to them, and in what way has their presence in the Transvaal been made legal; whether these coolies are employed at one mine or at several; and whether he can give to the House the name of the mine or mines, together with their proprietors; and whether he can state who is the official responsible for the error in calculation by which these coolies were allowed to be shipped from China.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communication was made by Lord Selborne to the new Government

    1337
    of the Transvaal that there was a large number of Chinese coolies who had been imported into the Colony without licenses; and, if so, what steps were taken by the Colonial Government to deal with the situation.
    MR. BYLES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the error in issuing, under the Transvaal Chinese Labour Ordinance, 259 licences for coolies in excess of the total number authorised, did not arise before the present Government took office; did it not remain undiscovered until some time after His Majesty's present Secretary of State was appointed; and what punishment, if any, will fall on the officer primarily responsible for this irregularity.
    MR. STEWART: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Chinese coolies who have been imported into the Transvaal without licences are at liberty to trade and acquire land; whether they are bound to reside on the premises of their employers; and, if so, whether they require any permit to lease the premises; and whether there is any law imposing the necessity of such a permit.
    MR. NICHOLLS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether persons who introduce and employ Chinese labourers in the Transvaal without having obtained licences for them are liable to a penalty of £100 for each labourer; and, if so, whether the introducers and employers of the 259 coolies recently imported without licences have been made amenable to the law.
    MR. NICHOLLS: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Chinese coolies who have been imported into the Transvaal without the licences required by the Labour Ordinance are subject to the restraints upon liberty, and upon the rights to acquire property, which are imposed by that Ordinance.
    MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the 257 Chinese labourers recently im-
    1338
    ported into the Transvaal without the licences required by law are at present confined in compounds; and, if so, in which mines and by what law or authority they are so confined.
    MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies who were the officials responsible for the recent importation into the Transvaal of 257 Chinese labourers not licensed, as required by the Labour Ordinance of 1904; and whether they have offered any explanation for permitting such a breach of the law.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I answer this and the other Questions on the subject by reading the telegrams which have passed between the Secretary of State and the High Commissioner. The number of Chinese coolies imported in S.S. "Cranley" appearing, according to the information in Colonial Office, to be somewhat in excess of the licences issued, Lord Elgin telegraphed on 27th December as follows: "It is difficult to reconcile statistics of Chinese coolies introduced since December, 1905, with number of licences thon outstanding. I should be glad if you would send Home by mail full report on the figures." The High Commissioner replied on 1st January: "1st January. Your telegram of 27th December No. 1. Matter has been referred to Jamieson, who, on again going through figures, has discovered that he unwittingly furnished me with incorrect data for my telegram 15th December, No. 1. That he should have done so is due to a series of unfortunate clerical errors for which he assumes full responsibility, I, of course, having nothing but his figures on which to go. He puts forward in part explanation of how mistakes arose the fact that the principal clerk in charge of returns was on leave and the figures were only checked by one, and that an inadequate method. The sole official record of the number of coolies in respect of whom licences are issued is the counterfoils of the licence-book, and according to these counterfoils, licences in respect of a total number of63,350 coolies were issued, exclusive of 3,000 applied for by the Randfontein group, which hereafter will be assumed to be permanently eliminated. In the process

    1339
    of investigation it was accidentally discovered that one licence and one counterfoil made out in June, 1905, were incorrectly filled in, the number on both appearing as 553 instead of 246 as it ought to have been. Prior to signature the licence was altered, but not the counterfoil, and the latter, as explained, constituting the only record in the Foreign Labour Department, 553 was, throughout all previous computations, assumed to be correct. It was only when the figures furnished in my telegram of 15th December were being compiled that this discrepancy was discovered, and the total set down at its correct amount, namely, 63,043. The true position therefore is as follows: actual number of licences issued 63,043, actual and prospective arrivals, 63,302, difference 259. Had the figure 553 on the counterfoil been correct, number of licences issued stood at 63,350, leaving a balance of licences over coolies of forty-eight, so that, in so far as the licences are concerned under which the coolies brought in since December, 1905, were introduced, no infraction of the stipulation laid down by His Majesty's Government could be assumed to have been committed. The one satisfactory feature of this blunder is that the fundamental error has been traced back to June, 1905, and that it was not discovered until last batch of coolies were on the water, thus making it impossible even for a hostile critic to suggest that error was anything but a pure accident. I have taken serious notice of the blunder, but am prepared to stand bail for the absolute loyalty of Jamieson and his staff." On this the Secretary of State telegraphed as follows:—"7th January. Matter most urgent. Your telegram 1st January, No. 3. In view of pledges given in House of Commons that no Chinaman not covered by licences should land in South Africa, it is desirable that the 259 arriving in excess of the number for whom licences were authorised should be returned to China. Please telegraph your views as to how repatriation could be effected and as to incidence of cost and of liability to compensate those who do not return willingly. Even if error was itself accidental the direct cause is negligence of. Superintendent in relying on so manifestly insufficient a record as counterfoils of licence book." To which
    1340
    High Commissioner replied:—"10th January. Matter most urgent. Your telegram No. 2, 7th January. I do not think that any incident of my administration has caused me more annoyance or regret than this unfortunate blunder made by my officers so long ago as 10th June, 1905, and which is producing its consequences now. It was a perfectly bona fide slip, such as all men are liable to. The Labour Importation Agency acting equally bona fide on mistaken information supplied by the Foreign Labour Department, cannot reasonably be made to share responsibility. I quite understand that His Majesty's Government consider it very desirable that, in view of pledges given, 259 men of the new arrivals should not have licences issued to them or be allowed to proceed to the Rand, but I am most grateful for being allowed to state extraordinary difficulty of Transvaal Government in the matter. If I am compelled to send back 259 of the coolies who have just arrived by the "Cranley," and are now in the depot at Durban, and my officers succeed in explaining position to them without producing a riot, whole expense will have to fall on Transvaal Government, and from the point of view of the Transvaal tax-payer Government's position will be indefensible. Government will have to pay to the Labour Importation Agency same sum for each of the 259 as is charged to His Majesty's Government with respect to state-aided repatriates, namely, £25 per head. We must also pay coolies reasonable compensation for loss of advantages they expect under their contract. I put this at £20 a head, being very least sum which Jamieson estimates that a reasonably hard working and economical coolie could save in the three years for which these men think they have come. Total £11,655, or say £12,000. This is an estimate of minimum sum on which, in opinion of Superintendent of foreign Labour, he can hope to persuade the men to return willingly. He says that none of them will return willingly without it. Says that it is more than possible that when they appreciate position they will stand out for more liberal compensation for breach of contract than £20 a head. We shall thus be involved in an absolute waste of public money to the extent of £12,000 at a moment when Government is in sore straits for money (and) is obliged to

    1341
    starve most necessary works in an effort to hand over the administration to the new Government without a deficit on the Budget, in spite of the very serious falling off in the revenue. For instance, a programme of new school buildings urgently required to replace existing insanitary accommodation has had to be postponed, and it is pointed out to me that, merely on account of a clerical error, Government will have to throw away a sum which would provide school accommodation for 800 children. I would remind you that total number of licences which have been issued is 63,043, and total number of coolies in the country, including all those brought by the "Cranley," is only 55,018, the difference being accounted for by the number who have been repatriated in one way or another, or who have died. I am not in any degree whatever responsible for what has happened, though I wish no one else to share with me responsibility for its consequences. I can only say that if His Majesty's Government can spare me this additional strain on Transvaal finances at a moment to me of extreme administrative difficulty, and allow me to pass this extra 259 men into the Transvaal, I shall be sincerely grateful." And the Secretary of State answered:—" 17th January. Your telegram of 10th January, No. 4. I accept your assurance that what has occurred has been the result of a pure error, and that no suspicion of bad faith attaches to any one. But where a distinct pledge has been given to Parliament it is important to render it impossible that we should be charged, even unjustly, with having broken it in letter or spirit. For this reason I should have been glad to arrange for the immediate repatriation of so many coolies as have been imported in excess of the number of licences issued. But I appreciate the force of the considerations which you urge, and I am reluctant to incur the risks to which you reform and especially on the eve of responsible government to impose an expenditure of £12,000 on the Transvaal as a consequence of the clerical error of an official, which took place before I assumed office. I will therefore not press further for repatriation of those coolies." As to the status of the 259 extra coolies, I do not know which ones they are nor upon which mines they are employed, nor how they should be distinguished among the total number imported. If the last 259 recruited were
    1342
    chosen, which seems the only possible way, reference would have to be made to China. So far as I am advised the mistake about the licences does not appear to affect the position of the labourer, who, when he is within the Transvaal, is subject to the provisions of the Labour Importation Ordinance. Moreover, all these matters have now passed in their administrative aspect wholly within the authority of the responsible Government of the Transvaal, and any legal issues which may arise out of them can only be determined by the Courts of that Colony.
    MR. J. WARD: I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to distribute that Answer.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I think it will be convenient to lay the full text of the telegrams I have read in the form of a Parliamentary Paper.
    MAJOR SEELY: Since I was the hon. Member to whom the pledge was given that, if any coolies in excess of the number of licences issued were found to have embarked on this steamer, they should be returned, may I ask my right hon. friend whether he does not consider that any statement that the matter is now within the province of the Transvaal Government is quite beside the mark so far as this House is concerned, and whether the return of those 259 coolies is not a duty laid on His Majesty's Government which they cannot possibly evade? Further, I desire to ask whether it is possible for these coolies to be repatriated under the Repatriation Ordinance and out of the funds so provided.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think that my hon. friend, having heard the telegrams, will suggest that we have not taken in a very serious spirit any pledge given to the House of Commons. But in carrying out such a pledge we must be guided by practical and. reasonable considerations, and the proportion between the theoretic issue involved and the great practical difficulties must always be observed. As to what we can do now in regard to any matters connected with the Transvaal, I speak on an entirely different footing from that on which I spoke before the Constitution was granted.

    1343
    We shall be guided largely by the responsible Ministers of the Transvaal.
    MR. BYLESasked what punishment would be inflicted on the officer primarily responsible.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know who the officer in question is. He is very likely some not very exalted official in the Labour Importation Agency or the Foreign Labour Department. He has evidently been very severely censured by his superiors, and I do not think we should be adopting a very wise course if we were to proceed further against this unfortunate official.
    MR. CROOKS: Is this a patronage appointment of the late Government?
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Were the coolies imported in excess of the numbers appearing on the licence or on the counterfoil?
    MR. CHURCHILL: More coolies were imported than appeared on the counterfoil.
    MR. LUPTON: Is it not a fact that the only officer responsible to the Colonial Office is the High Commissioner?
    MR. J. WARD: I should like to ask whether it is to be understood that Lord Selborne or those responsible for the administration of public affairs in the Transvaal have issued those 259 licences since January of this year.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The question is one of extreme complication, because no one can tell who are these particular 259 coolies. If you really wish to be quite just on the particular importer you ought to make a pro rata deduction from all the shiploads since the date when the error was made. In a matter so complicated I should hesitate to lay down the law without notice in answer to a supplementary Question. I must have an opportunity of consulting legal advisers. For anything done by Lord Selborne in this matter His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility.
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Why have the Government
    1344
    kept this information so long from the House?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No information was retained from the House, and it is always my endeavour to supply the House with the fullest information whenever I am interrogated; but I am not aware that it is my duty to endeavour to multiply opportunities for interrogation.

    British Settlers in the Orange River Colony.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the position of many of the British settlers in the Orange River Colony is precarious, owing to the excessive amounts they have to pay for redemption and interest; whether they have applied for a revaluation of their farms; and, if so, whether the Government will consent to the appointment of a commission of farmers and business men to inquire into the position of these settlers.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am aware that some of the settlers have applied for a revaluation; but I am not prepared to admit that the situation of many of them is precarious. The Government of the Orange River Colony have the interests of the settlers greatly at heart, and it does not appear that there would be any advantage in appointing a commission of inquiry.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is it the intention of the Government to consider the question of a revaluation of these lands?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know if that forms part of the scheme which is being promoted.

    Mr. Abbott's Ransom from Turkish Brigands.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has the £15,000 recently paid to Turkish brigands for the ransom of Mr. Abbott at Salonica been found by the British Government; and will he say on what Vote the money will be asked for from the House of Commons.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury; for Sir EDWARD GREY):The sum in question was advanced by His Majesty's Government, but will ultimately be required from the Ottoman Government, whom they hold responsible for the occurrence. It is not, therefore, proposed to submit any Vote for this service to the House of Commons.
    MR. BYLES: Have you applied for it to the Ottoman Government?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes.
    MR. BYLES: The question is are you likely to get it?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Albanian Outrage at Uskub.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that Mr. Heathcote-Smith, the acting British vice-consul, was attacked and robbed by armed Albanians outside Uskub on Saturday last; and whether, in view of the fact that this is the second attack on British subjects in Turkish territory within the last few weeks, he will take action to prevent the recurrence of such attacks.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend has called for a Report on the case from His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and he has received a telegram in reply from which it appears that the incident has been much exaggerated in the accounts published. Mr. Heathcote-Smith was, it is true, attacked by two Albanian robbers two miles from the town of Uskub, but he lost nothing but a book, and was not hurt. The Turkish authorities are doing all in their power to secure the arrest of the robbers, and my right hon. friend does not, therefore, consider it necessary to take any further stops in the matter for the present.

    Baptist Mission on the Congo.
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD:: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had several communications from the Baptist Missionary Society complaining that Article 6 of the Berlin Act of 1885, relating to the Government of the Congo,
    1346
    under which free and public exercise of every creed, and the right to erect religious buildings and to organise missions is to be subject to no restriction or impediment, has not recently been observed as regards this society, and complaining that a site belonging to the society has been occupied by the Congo Government without compensation and without another having been given in exchange; whether he has received from this society complaints that the fiscal imposts upon materials used for the construction of churches, Schools, and Hospitals, and for the carrying out of the general work of missionary societies, are heavy and oppressive; and whether he is in a position to state what action he has taken regarding these complaints, and with what result.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend has been for some time past in communication with the society on the subject, and the actual cases which have given rise to complaint are being carefully examined in order to see what action can be taken respecting them.

    " The Mikado."
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reasons are given for withdrawing the licence to act "The Mikado" in London and the provinces: what alterations or additions have been made in the play since the many hundreds of occasions of its previous presentation to cause the Lord Chamberlain to take a less favourable view of its effect on public taste and morals; and whether the Government will take immediate steps to remove the ban on this popular production.
    The following Questions on the same subject were also on the Paper:—
    MR. TREVELYAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that there is to be a performance of "The Mikado "in Leeds during the present week; whether the action of the Lord Chamberlain will result in its prohibition; and, if so, from what fund compensation will be forthcoming for the company which had intended the production of the play.
    MR. GEORGE FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when, and for what reason, the Lord Chamberlain withdrew the licence for the stage representation of the operetta called "The Mikado" after its continuous performance for so many years past; whether the withdrawal is temporary or permanent; whether it applies to the provinces as well as to London; whether it relates to performances by amateur operatic and dramatic societies throughout the United Kingdom; and, in any event, whether performances may still he given in all eases where the contracts and arrangements had been entered into before the withdrawal of the licence had been published.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): On the question of fact I am informed that the order of the the Lord Chamberlain applies both to London and the provinces, under Section 14 of the Act of 1843, for regulating theatres, and to all public performances of "The Mikado." The order is operative from the date of issue, which was March 26th. No compensation is payable under the Act. No alterations in the text have been made. As to the reasons for the prohibition I can add nothing to the Answer of my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary on Thursday last.† I am informed by the Lord Chamberlain that it will be a matter for consideration whether, after certain modifications in the text, the present restriction can be subsequently removed.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible in future to give rather longer notice in a case of this kind, as a great deal of inconvenience has been caused, especially in the town of Middlesbrough?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will convey that to the Lord Chamberlain. No doubt he will bear it in mind.
    MR. GEORGE FABER: Is it a fact that this music is forbidden to be played on ships of war and by regimental bands? May I also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the action of
    †See (4) Debates, clxxiii., 1062.
    1348
    the Lord Chamberlain in this matter has made this country ridiculous in the eyes of the civilised world?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I strongly protest against the last remark of the hon. Member, and as regards his first Question it has nothing to do with my Department.
    CAPTAIN FABERWill the licence be withdrawn for "H.M.S. Pinafore" which is a satire on another place?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Lord Chamberlain
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will state whether any Minister of the Crown is responsible to the House of Commons for the action or inaction of the Lord Chamberlain.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): The Home Secretary has been in the habit of answering Parliamentary Question on behalf of the Lord Chamberlain, and of seeing that he is furnished with the best legal advice; but it would require legislation to make him Parliamentarily responsible for the Lord Chamberlain.

    County of London Licensing Compensation Fund
    MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the approximate amount of the balance of the compensation fund in the hands of the compensation authority for the county of London at the commencement of the present year; the approximate amount of such balance after allowance for the discharge of all clams upon the fund in respect of licences refused in 1906; if sums forming the balance are invested, and, if so, in what manner; what was the purchase price of the investments; and what rate of interest they bear.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The balance was £341,616 11s. 9d., the claims amounted to upwards of £250,000, and after they are satisfied there will remain some £89,890. Of the aforesaid balance

    1349
    £145,000 were invested in Consols at 2½ per cent., the purchase price being 89 29/32 for £120,000 and 90 7/16 for £25,000. The remainder of the balance has borne interest at deposit rate.
    MR. REMNANT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it wise to invest the money in a fund which fluctuates so much as Consols?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That is a matter of opinion.
    MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the compensation authority for the county of London have this year imposed charges under the Licensing Act, 1904, for the purposes of the compensation fund at the maximum rate; whether he is aware that this will produce, when added to the balance in hand, a sum considerably in excess of any probable requirements for compensation payments for licences refused under the Act in the present year; that the levy has been imposed at the maximum rate owing to a depreciation in the value of the securities in which balances in hand have been invested by the authority, and that the same cause has led to delays in the payment of compensation awards; and whether, having regards to the hardships thus suffered by contributories to the fund, and in cases where there has been delay in the payment of compensation awards, he will consider the advisability of some emendation of Rule 60 of the Licensing Rules, 1904, or will take any other action in the matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed that, though the authority considered the fact of the depreciation of Consols—the only securities in which any part of the fund has been invested—it was not on this ground alone that it was deemed necessary to impose the maximum charge; and that there is no reason to anticipate that the proceeds will considerably exceed the requirements in respect of the year 1907. It does not appear from the information which I have received that any delay in paying the compensation monies is due to the depreciation in Consols, and I see no reason at present for any action on my part.

    Illegal Storage of Ammunition.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to give the House any information with regard to the alleged illegal storage of ammunition in certain towns in the North of England.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Proceedings have been taken against several persons in respect of this matter, and have been fully reported in the newspapers. I can add nothing of importance to the information given in these reports.

    London Postal Service Overseers.
    MR. A. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is necessary for all officers promoted to the rank of overseer in the London postal service to have an intimate knowledge of the local sorting, including the town area of the district, when qualifying for promotion.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): It is the duty of overseers in the London Postal Service to supervise the work of sorters and postmen, and it is necessary for them to possess such a knowledge of the local sorting as will enable them to discharge this duty efficiently.

    Wareham Postmaster's Grievance
    COLONEL R. WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Best, formerly postmaster of Wareham, who, after faithfully discharging his duties for forty-two years and sinking all his savings in erecting a suitable post-office, is now compulsorily retired without any pension; and whether, in view of his long service and the peculiar circumstances of the case, he can recommend any relaxation of the rules in his favour.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Mr. Best is not an established civil servant. Besides acting as postmaster, he held an outside appointment for many years until 1900, and he also carried on a private business from 1896 until 1896. The Superannuation Acts limit the award of pensions to established officers;

    1351
    and it is not in my power to obtain exceptional treatment for Mr. Best.

    Cable Telegraphists' Allowances.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the Post Office decided in 1905 to give telegraphists employed on foreign cables, and who lived in towns outside London, an allowance of 2s. per week, and that the staff employed at Lerwick and who work the foreign cable to the Faröe Islands, and have acquired a knowledge of the Danish language in order to increase their efficiency, have not received the allowance, steps will be taken to give it to them.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The allowance referred to is granted to telegraphists who spend the whole or a great portion of their attendance at foreign wires. At Lerwick there is but one foreign wire, and it is not possible to limit the attendance at this wire to one or two sorting clerks and telegraphists. The whole staff take the duty in turn, and the time spent on it by each individual telegraphist is not sufficient to justify the payment of an allowance.

    Ness and Beauly Fishery Rights
    MR, WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can now state the names of the landlords who claim fishery rights to the estuary of the Ness and Beauly rivers; and to what extent those rights extend I seawards from the Beauly and Ness rivers respectively.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I am informed by the clerks to the district Board that, so far as they are aware, the only proprietors who claim rights to salmon fishing in the estuary of the Beauly are Lord Lovat and Mr. Biscoe of Newton. The rights would apparently extend to Kessock Ferry in the case of Lord Lovat, but only ex adverso of Mr. Biscoe's land. The proprietors who claim right to salmon fishings in the estuary of the Ness are Mrs. Darwin of Muirtown, the town of Inverness, the Inverness Harbour Trustees, the Crown, Mrs. Crosbie of Flowerburn, Mr. Fletcher of Rosehaugh, the War Office, Donald Macdonald of Kessock, and Robert
    1352
    McLean of Drynie. The rights of these proprietors are believed to extend to the fishings ex adverso of their respective lands.

    Small Holdings in County Roxburgh.
    MR. SMEATON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will be able to start an early inquiry as to the need of small holdings at New-castleton and other parts of the parish of Castleton, in Liddesdale, in the county of Roxburgh.
    MR. SINCLAIR: If my hon. friend has in view the exercise by the Agricultural Commissioners of their powers under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill now before Parliament, I must ask him to defer such inquiries until a later date.

    Sporting Estates in Aberdeenshire
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now any information regarding enclosures and the extension of sporting ground on Mr. Heaven's estate near Aboyne, Aberdeenshire; whether he is aware that, in an adjoining estate of Glen Tara, belonging to Mr. Coats, the tenant of Easter Millfield, a man of seventy-three, whose family has been in the Glen for 200 years, and who is the last of the flourishing smallholders of Glen Tara, is under notice to quit; whether the farm of Tillycairn is now being put under grass for shooting purposes; whether, close at hand, part of the farm of Cobbleheugh has just been added to the sporting area, and the tenant is leaving at Whitsuntide; whether the tenant of the farm of Craigendinnie is also under notice to quit at Whitsuntide, in order that the sporting value of Mr. Coats' estate may be enhanced: and whether, in view of the reduction of the rural population of Aberdeenshire and the number of emigrants from the country to Canada, the Government will take any immediate action to prevent the absorption of paying farms into sporting areas.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have made inquiries with regard to the two estates referred to by the hon. Member. No information has yet reached me with regard to the former. With regard to the latter estate my information is as

    1353
    follows: The tenant of Easter Millfield expressed a desire to be relieved of his farm; this was agreed to; at the same time a small croft on the estate was offered to him, but he did not accept it. The tenant of Tillycairn asked to be relieved of his farm as a special favour, the farm is not being put under grass for shooting purposes but is being worked from the Home farm. Twenty-five acres of rough land covered with broom is being resumed from the farm of Cobbleheugh, the remaining portion of the farm, 175 acres, was offered to the late tenant, but on his not taking it, it was at once let at an advanced rent. The tenant of Craigendinnie, with whom the proprietor was satisfied in every way, is leaving at Whitsuntide, but as the present farmhouse and steading adjoins the mansion house, the proprietor has decided, as a sanitary precaution, to take the farm into his own hands. I have only to add that the attitude of the Government in regard to rural depopulation in Scotland and the maintenance of small farms is shown in the Small Landholders Bill now before Parliament.

    Dog Poisoning in Sutherland.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the poisoning of the crofters' dogs in the neighbourhood of Badininish, Skelbo, Sutherland; whether he is aware that a dog is absolutely necessary to the crofter; will he take steps to put an end to this persecution of crofters; and is he aware that putting poison about may be a danger to human beings as well as animals.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am informed that five dogs have died apparently by poison, and it is said the farmers have suffered heavily through lamb-worrying. There is, However, no charge against anyone and no evidence. If any complaint is made against anybody it will be investigated in the usual way by the Procurator Fiscal.

    Scottish Landlords' Claim to Seaweed.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that certain proprietors in the North of Scotland claim the seaweed as their own particular
    1354
    property; that persons desirous of earning a little by the collection of seaweed and the manufacture of kelp, under arduous conditions and often in the most inclement weather, can only do so by leave, and have to sell at what price the proprietor cares to give: and whether, in view of the above facts, he will cause inquiry to be made as to the conditions under which the seaweed is gathered, burned, and sold as kelp, and if it possible to establish the industry on a more equitable basis.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am taking steps to inform myself upon this matter, and will confer with my hon. friend in a few days time.
    MR. BYLES: Is the seaweed growing below high-water mark claimed as private property?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I will confer with the hon. Member.
    MR. FLAVIN: How much capital have the landlords sunk in this industry?

    Irish Board of Works Staff.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the exact status of a supernumerary staff officer, and in what Dublin offices are officials with this designation employed; whether he will state the circumstances which rendered such an appointment necessary in the office of the Board of Works, Dublin, and is it to be assumed that it was to meet temporary pressure, and, if so, has this pressure passed away, and will the officer concerned now revert to his original grade; why a former personal clerk of Sir Robert Holmes was transferred to this office in the capacity named, considering that at the same time he is receiving an allowance as a private secretary to Sir George Holmes; and under what circumstances were such exceptional measures necessary in an office the assistant secretary of which is now being spared indefinitely to the Railway Commission without any apparent inconvenience to the Department.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The appointment in question was made in connection with a partial reorganisation of the staff of the Board of Works agreed upon between

    1355
    the Treasury and the Board. The officer referred to was considered to possess special qualifications for the duties he was required to fulfil, and these expectations have been fully confirmed. Pending, however, the completion of the staff arrangements, for which opportunity has not offered, the post was not regarded as of a substantive character. It is not the case that this officer is receiving an allowance as private secretary. As regards the last part of the Question, the expert knowledge of the assistant secretary on railway matters was placed at the disposal of the Commission so long as he could conveniently be spared. The arrangement is, of course, of only a temporary nature.

    Dublin County Council and Land Purchase.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how the sum deducted in respect of land purchase transactions from the grants payable to the Dublin County Council is made up; and whether he will state the statutory enactments respectively by the authority of which the Treasury considers itself entitled to make the several deductions in question.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The proportion, of the total amount drawn from the Guarantee Fund in 1907, chargeable to County Dublin amounted to £1,574 11s. 7d. This sum is made up as follows:—Drawn under the Irish Land Act, 1903—

    £

    Arrears of Annuities

    325

    Unearned dividend on issues of Stock

    488

    Advance dividend

    280

    Interest due but not received

    318

    Unproductive balances

    185

    1,596

    Less—Repaid to Guarantee Fund under Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891

    21

    £1,575

    As regards the remaining portion of the Question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to my Answers to the hon. Member for Waterford of the 22nd and the 29th ultimo. †
    †See(4) Debates, clxxii,1425 et seq; clxxiii.,543.

    Prince Bulow and Disarmament.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of Germany's final refusal to discuss the subject of disarmament at the forthcoming Peace Conference, he will stop all pending discharges of workmen from Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyard till after the Conference has completed its labours.
    I beg also to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of Prince von Bulow's recent statement in the German Reichstag on the subject of disarmament, the Government intend to proceed immediately with the building of the third battleship of this year's programme.
    SR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: His Majesty's Government recognise the importance of the statement made by Prince Bulow. It is also apparent from the tone of that statement that the German Government desire, while maintaining their own view, to avoid causing difficulties or embarrassment to other Powers who are interested in this question. His Majesty's Government for their part desire to deal with the question in the same spirit and to avoid any action which is. likely to be embarrassing to any other Power. They also recognise that any question of expenditure on armaments cannot be dealt with except by agreement and consent, but they are not prepared at the present moment to make any further statement as to their own programme of shipbuilding and the expenditure connected with it.

    Lords-Lieutenant of Counties.
    MR WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the proposal in the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill to entrust military responsibilities to the lords-lieutenant and the national importance thereby attached to this office, the Government will introduce legislation securing that the office shall no longer be hold for life, but shall, like other military appointments, be subject to an age limit, and shall be made only for a term of years renewable at the option of the Crown.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is impossible at this early stage to answer this Question in detail. The

    1357
    question whether a change should be made is receiving consideration.

    Cost of Poor Law Administration.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the total cost of Poor Law Administration (including interest on loans) was approximately £15,000,000 for the last financial year, and that in spite of this fact there are more vagrants without any visible means of subsistence in the United Kingdom than in any other European country; and, under these circumstances, will His Majesty's Government consider the advisability of carrying out the unanimous recommendations of the Departmental Vagrancy Committee, which reported on 21st February, 1906.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The amount expended for the relief of the poor in England and Wales in the year ended at Lady Day, 1906, was £14,218,598, exclusive of expenditure out of loans. The amount of the expenditure during the last financial year has not yet been ascertained. The Local Government Board are not aware of any reliable figures enabling a comparison to be made between the number of vagrants in the United Kingdom and in other European countries. The matter is receiving the consideration of the Home Office and the Local Government Board which are the Departments concerned, but I am advised that legislation would be necessary to give effect to the principal recommendations of the Committee, and I am afraid that it will not be practicable to propose legislation on the subject this year.

    State aided Education and Universities
    MR. MURRAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent and prospective increased expenditure upon the improvement and development of State-aided education, of the importance of connecting it more closely with the universities, and of the fact that more than twenty-six years have elapsed since the last public inquiry into the universities and colleges of Oxford and Cambridge was hold, he will appoint a commission to examine into the desirability of amending the existing enactments with regard to the finances, emoluments, and government of those universities.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is a very large Question. I am disposed to agree with my hon. friend that the conditions of the universities are ripe for a thorough and comprehensive inquiry, but I am not disposed to add, at the present moment, to the number of Royal Commissions already existing.

    Colonial Conference—Debate on Preference
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the verbatim report of the speech recently delivered by the Honourable Alfred Deakin, Prime Minister of Australia, at the Conference of Colonial Premiers, on the subject of Colonial preference was withhold from the Press with the hon. Gentleman's sanction; and whether, in view of the importance of this particular message from the Commonwealth of Australia to the Mother Country, he will respectfully beg the hon. Gentleman's permission to have it handed in full to the Press.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: At the same time may I ask the Prime Minister whether the verbatim reports of the speeches of the Imperial delegates to the Colonial Conference on the preference resolutions will be laid upon the Table of the House before the Conference rises.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Conference has not finally determined the question of the publication of the whole of its proceedings which was reserved when it resolved to issue a pr Écis of each day's proceedings. With regard to the discussion, on the preference resolutions publication has been proposed, but at the last meeting of the Conference it was resolved that the debate on this subject must first be concluded. I cannot say whether it will be possible to publish before the Conference rises.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: Who is responsible for preparing the pr Écis, and is the prÉcis, when prepared, submitted for the approval of the Conference before it is issued to the Press?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I cannot answer the Question. I have no doubt there are competent people who make the prÉcis—persons selected by the Colonial Office; and as to the submission to the members of the Conference, I

    1359
    should have thought that would cause delay. But if the hon. Member puts the Question down I will obtain such Answer as I can.
    VISCOUNT TURNOURasked whether the Colonial Office or the Conference was responsible for the prÉcis, and also who was responsible for the publication almost in full detail of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the preference resolution, and the publication of a by no means verbatim report of the speeches of the other members.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know that the facts are as stated by the noble Lord. If he puts that Question on the Paper I will get, as I have said, such Answer as I can from the Conference.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: Are the figures given in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer official figures?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Yes, Sir, they are. They are perfectly accurate in every particular.
    CAPTAIN CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether, in response to a largely expressed desire, a special exception could not be made of this particular speech and a full report given to the public?
    MR. ASQUITH: Does the hon. Member refer to my speech.?
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: No; I was referring to the speech of Mr. Deakin.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member speaks of a general desire. I do not know, but I can ascertain. The whole thing is being done perfectly in order under the direction and instruction and with the full knowledge of the Conference.
    MR. REMNANT: Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer take his figures from the Blue-book as published?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That does not arise out of the original Question.

    Reports of Colonial Conferences
    MR. STANGER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the proceedings of the last Colonial Conference were fully reported; and, if not, whether, in the event of the present Conference deciding that a full report of its proceedings shall be published, an equally full report of the proceedings of the last Conference can be published at the same time.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, the proceedings at the last Colonial Conference were not fully published, in consequence, I understand, of objection being taken to that course by some of its members. Whether a full report of the proceedings of that Conference will be issued at the present time is a question for the decision of the Conference itself.

    Land Valuation (Scotland) Bill
    MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Land Valuation (Scotland) Bill will be introduced.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; I cannot yet fix a day, but I hope very shortly.

    The Under-Secretary for War.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Under-Secretary of State for War has resigned; and, if not, whether the Government will give to the House of Commons an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the continued retention of office by the Under-Secretary.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In reply to the noble Lord I might almost ask what grounds he has for suggesting that the Under-Secretary for War has resigned, for such a question must be founded on some element of fact, and up to the present time I have not heard of any such rumour or resignation. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, he must see that with the amount of public business that the House has on hand at the present moment, it would be very difficult, even if not impossible, to provide time for the discussion of the action of the Undersecretary for War.
    CAPTAIN FABER: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not a fact that only recently another tenant of the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for War gave notice—[Cries of "Order, order."]
    MR. SPEAKER: When I rise, the hon. and gallant Member should resume his seat.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I apologise; I did not see you, Sir.
    LORD E. CECIL: May I ask whether an opportunity will not occur on the Estimates or otherwise for the House to express its opinion on this question?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know that it is a question on which the House ought to be called upon to express an opinion.
    MR. LEA: Having in view the great danger to the Liberal Party from the retention in office of this noble landlord, will the Prime Minister give an opportunity to hon. Members sitting below the gangway to express their views?
    SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the hon. Member has already expressed his views.

    Irish Council Bill.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of the Central Council (Ireland) Bill, he will arrange to allow three days for the debate on the First Reading.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, I think such an allowance would be quite excessive and unnecessary. I can find no precedent for such a course. The Local Government (County Councils) Act, 1888, had one day for First Reading; The Local Government (Parish Councils) Act, 1894, one day; The Irish Local Government (County Councils) Act, 1898, one day; The Education Act, 1902, one day; The Education Bill, 1906, one day; and one day, I think, will be quite sufficient in the present case.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it not the fact that four days were given to the First Reading of the last Home Rule Bill?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is quite possible.

    Political Pensions.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that an applicant for a political pension is required to make a declaration of poverty or of inadequacy of means before he obtains such pension, he will take steps to secure that no person in future makes this declaration and yet becomes a Member of this House.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The declaration in question is to the effect that the applicant's private fortune is inadequate to maintain his station in life. I do not see how I can prevent any person, whether a Member of this House or not, from making such a declaration.

    Pacific Islanders Act.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce the Bill to amend the Pacific Islanders Act.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, I cannot yet say when this Bill will be introduced.

    Blocking Motions and Bills.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have made any progress with the new Standing Order against blocking Bills and Motions; and when it is intended to introduce this Order.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The new Order is in course of preparation and will shortly be submitted to the Opposition Whips with the idea of securing unanimous assent. It will thon be placed upon the paper.
    LORD R. CECIL: When will it be submitted?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: Really, I cannot say from day to day what the Cabinet will do. We are losing no time in the matter. This is about the fifth or sixth question I have been asked to answer. I think we might be

    1363
    allowed to proceed with deliberation and care in regard to this matter.
    LORD R. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has in his mind the fact that this question was I raised before the Easter holidays and that the excuse given immediately after the Easter holidays was that the Government had been away on their holidays?
    SIR H CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is not the only thing that has engaged our attention.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 138.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 138.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing, Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Patents and Designs Bill): Major McMicking; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Patents and Designs Bill): Mr. Timothy Davies.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Friday read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Motion for the Allocation of Time for the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannermdn.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 313; Noes, 95. (Division List No. 156.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S

Acland. Francis Dyke

Burke, E. Haviland-

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Agnew, George William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Alden, Percy

Buxton, Rt.Hn.Syndey Charles

Dickson-Poynder.Sir John P.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Byles, William Pollard

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Ambrose, Robert

Cameron, Robert

Dillon, John

Asquith, Rt. H on. HerbertHenry

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Donelan, Captain A.

Astbury, John Meir

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duckworth. James

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Duffy, William J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Channing. Sir Francis Allston

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Barlow, Jn. Emmott (Somerset)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Dunne,MajorE.Martin (Walsall

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Edwards. Frank (Radnor)

Barnard, E. B.

Clancy, John Joseph

Elibank, Master of

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Beale, W. P.

Cleland, J. W.

Erskine, David C.

Beauchamp, E.

Clough, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Beck, A. Cecil

Coats,SirT.Glen (Renfrew,W.)

Essex, R. W.

Bell, Richard

Cobbeld, Felix Thornley

Esslemont, George Birnie

Bellairs, Carlyon

Collins, Stephon (Lambeth)

Everett, R. Lacey

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R

Collins,SirWm.J.(S. PancrasW.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fenwick, Charles

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cooper, G. J.

Ferens, T. R.

Billson, Alfred

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

Ffrench, Peter

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Findlay, Alexander

Blake, Edward

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Boland, John

Cox, Harold

Flynn, James Christopher

Boulton, A. C. F.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bowerman, C. W.

Crean, Eugene

Fuller, John Michael F.

Branch, James

Crombie, John William

Fullerton, Hugh

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Crooks, William

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Brooke, Stopford

Davies.M. Vaughan - (Cardigan)

Ginnell, L.

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

Davies. Timothy (Fulham)

Gladstone.Rt.Hn.Herbert Jn.

Brunner.RtH SirJ.T.(Cheshire)

Delany, William

Glendinning, R. G.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Killop, W.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Grant, Corrie

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

Rowlands, J.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Micking, Major G.

Runciman, Walter

Greenwood. Hamar(York)

Maddison, Frederick

Russell, T. W.

Gulland, John W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Samuel, HerbertL. (Cleveland)

Gurdon, Sir W, Brampton

Markham, Arthur Basil

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Marnham, F. J.

Schwann.SirC.E. (Manchester)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Massie, J.

Sears, J. E.

Halpin, J.

Masterman. C. F. G.

Seaverns, J. H.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Meagher, Michael

Seely, Major J. B.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Meehan, Patrick A.

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r.)

Menzies, Waller

Sheehy, David

Harrington, Timothy

Molteno, Percy Alport

Sherwell, Arthur Jame.

Hart-Davies, T.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mooney, J. J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hayden, John Patrick

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim.S.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morrell, Philip

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hazleton, Richard

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Soares, Ernest J.

Hedges, A. Paget

Murray, James

Spicer, Sir Albert

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Myer, Horatio

Stanger, H. Y.

Henry, Charles S.

Napier, T. B.

Stanley,Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nicholls, George

Steadman, W. C.

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hobart. Sir Robert

Nolan, Joseph

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Norman, Sir Henry

Summerbell, T.

Hogan, Michael

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sutherland, J. E.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Horniman. Emslie John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nuttall, Harry

Tennant,SirEdward (Salisbury

Hudson. Walter

O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

Thomas.SirA. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hyde. Clarendon

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Thomas.David Alfred(Merthyr

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Doherty, Philip

Thomasson, Franklin

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Dowd, John

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

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Hare, Patrick

Tomkinson, James

Jenkins. J.

O'Malley, William

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Mara, James

Toulmin, George

Jones,SirD. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ure, Alexander

Jowett, F. W.

Partington, Oswald

Verney, F. W.

Joyce, Michael

Paulton, James Mellor

Vivian, Henry

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pearson,SirW.D.(Colchester)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Kettle, Thomas Michael

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

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Perks, Robert William

Wardle, George J.

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Waring, Walter

Laidlaw, Robert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Pollard, Dr.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Lambert, George

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

Waterlow, D. S.

Lamont, Norman

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

Watt, Henry A.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Radford, G. H.

Weir, James Galloway

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Whitbread, Howard

Lehmann, R. C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, George (Norfolk)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Whitehead, Rowland

Lough, Thomas

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whitley,John Henry (Halifax)

Lundon, W.

Rees, J. D.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Lupton, Arnold

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Williams.Llewelyn (Carmarth')

Lyell, Charles Henry

Richards.T.F. (Wolverhampt'n

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Lynch, H. B.

Ridsdale, E. A.

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

Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Winfrey, R.

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

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Young, Samuel

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robertson,Rt.Hn.E. (Dundee)

Macnamara. Dr. Thomas J.

Robertson.SirG. Scott(Bradford

TELLERS FOE THE AYES: —

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Macpherson, J. T.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Pease.

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

1366

1367

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell.

Du Cros, Harvey

Nicholson.Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Faber,George Denison (York)

Parker,SirGilbert (Gravesend)

Ashley, W. W.

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

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.Sir

Fardell, Sir T. George

Percy, Earl

Balfour,RtHn.A. J. (City Lond.

Fell, Arthur

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury,Sir Frederick George

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

Baring.Capt. Hn.G(Winchester

Forster, Henry William

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Gordon, J.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield.Ecclesall)

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Rothschild, Hon. LionelWalter

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Heaton, John Henniker

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Helmsley, Viscount

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford,East)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

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

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hills, J. W.

Stanley.Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

Hunt, Rowland

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Talbet, Lord E. (Chichester)

Caitlereagh, Viscount

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thomson. W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cavendi h,Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Lane-Fox, G. R

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Evelyn (A.ton Manor)

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

Turnour, Viscount

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Liddell, Henry

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lockwood.Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

Warde.Col C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A. (Wore

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

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

Clark, George Smith (Belfast,N.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Courthope, G. Loyd

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Craig, CharlesCurtis (Antrim,S.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Craig,CaptainJames (Down,E.)

Marks, H.H. (Kent)

Younger, George

Craik, Sir Henry

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Cross, Alexander

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR. THE NOES—Sir

Dalrymple, Viscount

Moore, William

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Dixon-Hartland,SirFred Dixon

Morpeth, Viscount

Viscount Valentia.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,in moving a Resolution in regard to the allocation of time to the various stages of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill, said:—I wish candidly to say, what must be present to everyone's mind, that this Resolution which I have placed upon the Paper is a novelty. We are not unaccustomed to time-table Resolutions, but we usually introduce them in another way. The usual course has been that we enter into the Committee stage of a Bill and we go on with it possibly sometimes with great minuteness and great expenditure of time until at last it becomes an imperative—an absolute—necessity to intervene and prevent, by any further extension of time, any interference with the progress of the general business of the session. Then in a hurried way the Government of the day introduces a guillotine Resolution of this kind, allocating a certain amount of time to certain parts of the Bill. That is always open to the objection that we flounder
  1368
  in the first portion of the proceedings and we scramble in the second. Neither one nor the other is a very businesslike way of proceeding. The Bill we have under our consideration to-day is a peculiar Bill. The natural course after the House had adopted certain new Rules of Procedure which occupied our attent on some time ago would be for this Bill to be sent to a Committee upstairs, with the exception of the financial clauses, which must remain to be considered here. That would have been the natural course, and I should have thought that this was a Bill that might be very properly dealt with in that manner, because we are all agreed with its main purpose. I trust there is in no part of the House any disagreement of opinion with regard to that. We are agreed as to the main purpose of the Bill, and I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will recognise that this is not a mere hasty effort to hang up a fancy and perhaps pretentious scheme with a view to gaining a little political advantage, and that they will all admit it is a subject which has received the most sedulous and serious consideration by my right hon. friend the

  1369
  head of the War Department and those who have advised and collaborated with him in the matter. It is also a Bill of much detail, and the detail is wholly connected with the machinery for bringing the Bill into operation. It is not machinery which involves to any great extent anything in the nature of principle, and therefore both Parties must be united in recognising that it is a Bill for a praiseworthy object, and the result of praiseworthy attention and preparation. On the ground also that the nature of most of its provisions is just that which should be considered by a Committee, I should have expected the Bill would have gone without much grumbling to a Committee upstairs. But objection was taken to that on the ground that, as, after all, we were dealing with a very important matter, namely, the safety and defence of the country, the Bill had a claim to public consideration perhaps greater than some other Bills that come before us. We wished to meet that objection, and accordingly it was announced by my right hon. friend that we would not take the usual course, and send the Bill upstairs, but would leave it to be considered by a Committee of the Whole House. Having made this concession we think it should not be made the means of impeding the general progress of business by too particular and minute discussion upon the details of a principle to which the House has already agreed. As that is our object, and this Resolution has been framed with a view of attaining that object, I hope that after all there will be substantial agreement on the subject. It seems to be a perfectly fair, equitable, reasonable, and certainly a straightforward course to take. But then two things were said: the first was that no proceeding such as this should be recommended to the House except as part of a general method of dealing with business of this kind, and the other practical suggestion was that we should have a Committee of Business to allocate the time. I have through long years express ad myself as being in favour of a Committee of Business. But a Committee of Business is not set up in a minute. An attempt was made a few weeks ago to have a little conversation on this subject, but it passed over, and I have not repeated the attempt. The truth is we have spent a great deal of time over Procedure this session, and I do not
  1370
  think we can devote any more. Undoubtedly if any proposal as to a Committee of Business were brought forward at this time of the session, a great deal of time would be spent. Therefore, we have to deal in the best way we can with the matter in the absence of any such provision. And I really think that we could not do anything better, nor take any course more in accordance with common sense and with business propriety, and in the interests of the House, than the course to which we are asking the House consent. I will go through the Resolution, and I think I shall be able to show that we have apportioned the time in a fair spirit, and on a wall thought out plan. In the first place, we give ample opportunity for discussing the really important points. We do not wish important points to be smuggled through and crashed out of the debate. There is ample time by this arrangement for hon. Members to look ahead, and to reserve themselves for the really important points; and, at the same time, we have regard to the necessity of advancing public business as rapidly as is consistent with the proper discharge of our duties in the consideration of the Bill in Committee. If hon. Members will look at the Bill they will see that what I give is an accurate account of the effect of the Resolution. On the first day we propose that we shall take Clauses 1 and 2 and the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution. Clause 1 constitutes the associations. That is a very important clause. It is a great step in the way of decentralisation, and it adheres to and puts in force the principle which has been generally accepted, of the separation of command and training from the mere work of local administrative business and financial control. That, as I say, is an important clause. I do not enter upon the merits of the particular plan; that would be out of place just now. To that clause we give, naturally, a considerable portion of the time, as we recognise its importance. Clause 2 provides directions as to the Army Council's giving proper powers to the associations. I would say of that clause, although it seems somewhat elaborate, that it consists of detailed provisions which are illustrations of the things which ought to be done; and the action of the associations will be brought annually before Parliament

  1371
  for discussion, condemnation, criticism, or approval, every year on the Vote, which will be a separate Vote, taken for the Territorial Army. It merely gives power to the Army Council to do certain things. On the second day we propose to take the report of the Financial Resolution, and Clauses 3 and 4. What are Clauses 3 and 4. Number three deals with finance. The money will be spent partly by the General Officer Commanding, who takes the troops out for training, with which the association has nothing to do, and the money spent is controlled and audited according to the Army Vote under the military system which we have at present. The rest of the money is handed over to the decentralised body—the associations, and they also will be subject to a regular system of control and audit, which has been devised with a view to making them as perfect as possible, and I believe that end has been successfully attained. On the third day we propose to take Clauses 5, 6, and 7—those affecting the raising and maintaining of the force. The principles on which those forces are composed have been so fully discussed on the First Reading and Second Reading—about four days being occupied by the debate—that really I doubt if there is much more to be said. We approach this subject with a full knowledge of the arguments which have been used on previous occasions on both sides of the House. On the fourth day we take the clauses from 8 to 12, which affect enlistment in the service and discharge; these also have been very fully discussed. I do not think this is asking too much. On the fifth day we will take Clauses 13 to 27, the first of which is to make provisions as to the annual training and embodiment, the arrangements for which are substantially identical with, or at any rate do not go beyond, the rules to which the Volunteers subject themselves at present. Volunteer corps, as we all know, adopt rules which are signed by the Volunteers when they join, and this Bill expresses those Rules with some necessary modifications. That does not seem to be much for the fifth day. On the sixth day we take the clauses from 28 to the end of the Bill. These relate to the special Reservists. We allow two days for the Report stage, and one day for the Third Reading. And we have a provision in the Resolution which secures
  1372
  that the time of those days shall not be interrupted by private business.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We have put down an Amendment as to that.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That shows our catholic spirit. That is the disposition with which we approach this subject. I really think, when we consider it, that the ordinary and natural course for a Bill of this kind would be to send it to a Committee upstairs, and then that it should come down to the House; but we have agreed to keep it in the House in order that hon. Members may be satisfied that they will have ample opportunity for discussion. We only guard ourselves against a waste of the time of the House on smaller matters, which would have been better expended on important points, and against any operation which might be desired—as in the course of my experience of the House of Commons has sometimes occurred—not so much in the interests of the Bill as in respect of the interests of some other measure, which for the moment might not be immediately under the consideration of the House. I think the objects of the Resolution are legitimate objects, and that those provisions will really prevent what I have described as the method of floundering for half the time find scrambling for the other half, while enabling hon. Members who are interested in the subject to secure, if they like, a good opportunity of discussing the really important points. In that sense I think it is a business-like proposal, and I submit it with confidence to the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee stage and Report stage of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill, including the Financial Resolution relating thereto, shall be proceeded with in the following manner: (a) That Clauses 1 and 2 and the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution be proceeded with, and proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; (b) That the Report stage of the Financial Resolution and Clauses 3 and 4 be proceeded with, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day;

  1373
  (c) That Clauses 5 to 7 be proceeded with, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the third allotted day; (d) That Clauses 8 to 12 be proceeded with, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the fourth allotted day; (e) That Clauses 13 to 27 be proceeded with, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the fifth allotted day; (f) That the remaining Clauses of the Bill and the Schedules, and any new Government clauses and any new Government Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the sixth allotted day, and that the Chairman report the Bill to the House without Question put; (g) That two allotted days be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and that new clauses and Clauses 1 to 15 of the Bill be proceeded with on the first of those allotted days, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day, and that the remaining clauses of the Bill and the Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion, be proceeded with on the second of those allotted days and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day.
  "After this Order comes into operation, any day (other than a Friday) shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any stage of the Financial Resolution relating thereto is put down as the first Order of the Day, followed by the Bill.
  "At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are to be brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall, if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses or Schedules
  1374
  he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
  "At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order of the Day, or if that day is a Friday at 5 p.m. the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
  "Proceedings to which this Order relates shall not, on any allotted day on which proceedings or any business are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  "After the passing of this Order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill (including the Financial Resolution relating thereto) stand as first Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order 10, nor Motion to postpone a clause, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has performed what I have no doubt was to him a distasteful task, with great moderation and amiability; but I do not think that anybody who heard the speech in which he defended the proposals, and which you, Sir, have just read from the chair, would be likely to be seriously moved by the arguments he has advanced. The right hon. Gentleman admits that he has invented on this occasion a new kind of Parliamentary guillotine. I do not know whether the inventive powers of the Government in other departments of legislative activity show to great advantage during the two years they have been in office, but certainly no one will deny that they have shown ingenuity in dealing with the liberties of this House, and they have been fertile in expedients for limiting those opportunities of debate by which they set such marvellous store when they were sitting on this side of the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to read a short quotation from a speech which he made,

  1375
  not upon the occasion of any closure or guillotine Resolution moved by his predecessors in office, but upon the occasion when the whole of the Rules were under consideration, and when the late Government brought forward a scheme which was in part accepted by the House, and under which we are now working, for the improvement of our procedure. The speech to which I refer was one moderate in tone, and in which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman was not moved by any of those Party considerations which at at the time he vehemently, and, I think, quite sincerely excluded. The right hon. Gentleman spoke thus. I ought to remind the House that he was describing the importance of this Assembly as being the great "inquest of the nation"; and he went on to say—
  ''For my part I will go so far as to say that efficiency in the conduct of business,"
  —that is to say, efficiency in carrying through legislative projects—
  "is mainly secondary to I lie maintenance of those rights of winch I speak, and it would be better that the House should be less efficient in its transaction of business,"
  —that is legislative business—
  "and retain the full faculty to exercise the functions to which I refer,"
  —namely, the grand inquest of the nation
  "rather than that it should be diminished and the House should become the most perfect legislate e machine in the world."
  Those were the principles which weighed with the right hon. Gentleman at that time.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Hear, hear. [MINISTERIAL cheers.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather from the cheers with which the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters greet the quotation that he holds them now. But I fear I shall get nothing from the right hon. Gentleman but his cheers. While I cannot allow that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have made the House a perfect legislative machine, they have devoted infinite time and trouble to making it a more rapidly working machine—not a better, but a quicker machine.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Therefore giving it more time, to the advantage of the nation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let the House notice how the grand-inquest of-the-nation theory works. The right hon. Gentleman has now allocated nine days in all for the remaining stages of this Bill. On not one of those nine days, representing between two and three weeks of Parliamentary time, will it be possible to move, even in the most urgent circumstances, the adjournment of the House in order to discuss any matter of public interest. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman seriously maintains that his object has been to give the critics of the Government freer scope than they had before he took this business in hand. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are more afraid of criticism than their predecessors, but I think they will be the first to admit that the actual practical result of what he has done will be to diminish the power of the House to deal as critics with the action of the Government. As to whether he has made this House a more perfect legislative machine I will not inquire, but I entertain grave doubts on that subject. What is the plan of the right hon. Gentleman? He has referred in his speech to a scheme which has often been adumbrated, under which some machinery should be devised of an impartial character in older to allocate the time to be devoted to Government measures. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has always been in favour of a scheme of that sort, and in making that statement he finds sympathetic auditors on the Opposition side of the House. But may I point out this to the right hon. Gentleman and to hon. Members who do me the honour to listen to me: that nothing in the world can be more difficult than the elaboration of an impartial tribunal to allocate the time of the House is shown by this scheme under which the Government make themselves judges in their own cause. An impartial tribunal would have to consider not the amount of time that remains between now and the time at which the Government propose to terminate the session, but the inherent and intrinsic importance of the questions brought before them; otherwise a Government which chose to bring in an unconscionable number of measures of the first class would be able to squeeze the discussion of them into an equally unconscionably brief space of time. Any

  1377
  tribunal dealing with the time to be allotted to particular Bills ought to consider the normal amount of work thrown upon Parliament, and the amount of time which can fairly and properly be devoted to the discussion of any particular measure The right hon. Gentleman appears to be under the impression that, although the Government have constituted themselves judges in their own cause, hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House ought to say, "We thank the Government for the liberality of their treatment: they might have sent the Bill upstairs, but they have kept it down here, and allowed time for discussion." But we really cannot accept that view It is quite true, as the Prime Minister says, that there were protests—not, I think, entirely from this side of the House—against sending the Bill upstairs, but what was the alternative present in the minds of those who made the protest? The alternative was keeping it down here. I cannot accept the contention of the Government that the retention of the Bill in the House for Committee, coupled with the conditions of this closure Resolution, is liberal treatment of the Opposition. Personally I would have preferred free discussion in a Committee upstairs and free discussion on Report in the House to limited discussion in the House at both stages. Just consider for a moment what the allocation of time is. The right hon. Gentleman has gone through the clauses of the Bill, and he has come to the conclusion that there is ample time under this Resolution in each Department for dealing with all the clauses, and he bases that contention partly on the fact that we have had a very long discussion already upon the proposals of the Minister for War. The Minister for War made some very interesting speeches last year, and produced some interesting plans, which received a certain amount of discussion. Last year's debates, on which the Prime Minister partly founds his contention as to the adequacy of the time now given, are irrelevant to this debate. The Government are either greatly under-rating the importance of their own proposals or greatly under-rating the time the House would have occupied in debating them if left free. I observe that he has devoted five days out of six to the question of the Territorial Army, and the allied question of the county committees. One day only will be available for the
  1378
  discussion of what I personally regard as by far the most important part of the Bill—lhat part which creates the Special Reserve and by implication destroys the Militia. Surely that is wholly absurd. To discuss the creation of the Special Reserve and the destruction of the Militia, the Prime Minister appears to think that one whole day between the hour of four in the afternoon and eleven at night will be amply sufficient. I must say that I cannot agree with him, and if he will reflect on the matter he will see how difficult his position is to defend. The Militia is a historic force deeply rooted in the traditions of the country, and they have played a most important part in the past in our general readiness for war. Although I admit that the strength, organisation, and training of the Militia leaves much to be desired everybody will be ready to admit that in a serious conflict the Militia can be used, and ought to be used, to relieve the more highly trained troops in the service of the Crown. The House does not yet know what it will cost to convert the guns for the Volunteer artillery, be create the ranges, and they have no information upon the more important question of the Regular artillery. The right hon. Gentleman and I have had conferences across the Table on the subject, and I have never yet got to the bottom of his mind upon it. I have always understood that he meant to destroy 3,800, or some number of that kind, of the Artillery. Personally I regard that as absolutely disastrous; but while it would be out of order to argue that point, it is strictly relevant to this question to say that although we know what the policy of the Government is in regard to the Regular Artillery, we really cannot form a judgment as to their policy in regard to the Volunteer Artillery. The two things are intimately bound together. We do not know what the policy is, and until we know how can we discuss it? All that information has to be elicited from the Government under those privileged conditions which enable the Government to answer or not to answer just as they like, for they know that when the automatic hour strikes the debate comes to a conclusion, and questions asked and unanswered remain asked and unanswered, no answer or cross-examination is possible; the Chairman has automatically to put the

  1379
  question at the appointed hour, and the House may finish its debate as ignorant at the end as it was at the beginning on matters which are really material to the decision of the problem the Government have laid before us. The Prime Minister told us just now that under the former system of guillotine the House floundered in the earlier and scrambled during the later part of the discussion. At all events, there is to be said for the former procedure that the liberties of the House were not curtailed until experience had shown to the Government of the day that such curtailment was necessary. Here you mean to shut up and to confine a possible malefactor, not because he has I done anything wrong, but because he may do something wrong. Of course, that may be consistent with the views of the Government on Parliamentary procedure, but it is not in accordance with the laws of ordinary criminal jurisprudence. I want to know whether this process of floundering and scrambling is going to be avoided, or is likely to be avoided, by the plan proposed by the Government. The advantage of some impartial tribunal, who shall allot the time, if it can be carried out, is that there should be some kind of consent and co-operation between the two sides of the House, and that the critics in the House, naturally not all drawn from the Opposition side, would feel that they were not being trampled upon, and that they should co-operate with the Government in seeing that the most important questions had most time allotted to them. How are you going to attain that under this Motion? Do the Government really think that those who desire to criticise the Bill regard this as fair treatment? Do they think they can claim this system of co-operation, which under a different system, and in happier circumstances, they might be able to command, and if they cannot command that hearty and zealous co-operation, what is to prevent the floundering and scrambling under this Motion reaching the same pitch as it has reached under other systems, and in connection with other measures? I regret the course the Government have taken, and I wonder whether they do not feel themselves that, of all Governments, they are the administrators who ought to be most sensitive that there should be full House of Commons criticism
  1380
  of the Bill, because they have announced their intention that there shall not be full control in the second chamber of measures which leave us and go elsewhere. I might be out of order if I were to discuss either the merits or the demerits, the utility or the inutility, of a Second Chamber. But everybody who sees a Resolution of this sort on the Paper must be conscious that the result of it may be, and very likely will be, that a great measure affecting the value of our Army in war, and closely connected with the fortunes of the Volunteer and Auxiliary Forces, may leave this House imperfectly discussed in Committee and on Report, and that when it goes to another place the House of Lords will not have before them the mind of this House, and the result of our criticisms and discussions, for we shall not have criticised and discussed it. I confess if I were engaged in the crusade in which the right hon. Gentleman has, rightly or wrongly, embarked in connection with the ancient Constitution of this country, I should be very careful, when trying to establish a system of one Chamber Legislature, at all events to see that the liberties of that one Chamber were sedulously safe-guarded. The right hon. Gentleman has not taken that course, and I shall certainly resist the Motion which has been proposed.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Leader of the Opposition had touched upon a most important subject in regard to guillotine Resolutions. Such Resolutions would undoubtedly help and support the House of Lords in connection with the consideration of Bills. The difficulty was not, he thought, that the Resolution struck the organised and regular Opposition in regard to the curtailment of debate. The difficulty in connection with guillotining a Bill, and especially one of this character, was that the guillotine, rightly or wrongly, in practice prevented Amendments being moved. There was not the same liberty to move Amendments, and unless an hon. Member could persuade the Minister in charge of the Bill to accept an Amendment there was no discussion of it if it was not reached within the time allowed by the guillotine Resolution. He had personally to thank the Minister in charge of this Bill for meeting him

  1381
  and others in regard to points to which attention was directed on the Second Reading. The difficulty to his mind in regard to the guillotine was that it stopped Amendments, and that was particularly dangerous in the ease of a Bill of this description. Notice of Amendments, some of which he could support, had been given from more than one quarter of the House, and the House should have an opportunity of considering them. But the answer was that the course now proposed was inevitable. What else could they do? It was inevitable if the House were to sit for only a very limited portion of the year, and if the Government had a large programme, having regard to the fixed claims on their time for the discussion of Supply. It was impossible to deal with large measures in these circumstances except by the use of the guillotine. The discussions of Supply and on the Budget were making enormous drafts on the time of the House, and the only way they could make progress with other questions was by sitting through the autumn or by using the guillotine. Unless they were prepared to sit through the autumn, it was undoubted that they must continue to use the guillotine on every great Government measure. There was a tendency to extend its use, and the remedy was for the House to sit through a larger portion of the year. The financial considerations in connection with this Bill were material considerations. The right hon. Gentleman had truly said that the Government had not yet given the House a fair estimate in regard to the cost of their proposals. But the Secretary of State for War had promised to give a revised estimate before the House went into Committee on the Bill, and in reply to many questions from different quarters of the House the right hon. Gentleman had made statements which had greatly extended their knowledge and confirmed the view some hon. Members had taken on the Second Reading, that the scheme could not be put in force for the amount originally suggested. There would be under the proposal now made to the House an opportunity of debating more adequately some of the constitutional questions which lay at the basis of the finance, and of dealing with the criticism which had come from both sides of the House that the effect of the Bill was to strengthen the financial hold
  1382
  the Army Council had over the funds voted by the House for the Militia and the Yeomanry, and to weaken the control of the House, which had always been thought essential, by taking the finance out of the purview of the Comptrollor and Auditor-General and of the Public Accounts Committee. The alarm felt on this subject had been to some extent dispelled by the answers of his right hon. friend, but at the same time it was satisfactory that on the Report stage of the financial Resolution there would be an opportunity of discussing that question. The objection he had to take personally to this Resolution was not based on the financial aspect of the question or on deficiency of information. Some hon. Members made the same objection, from the point of view of finance, in the discussion in 1902 in connection with the guillotine proposals on the Education Bill. Those who had difficulties on many points of the Bill would be barred out from all opportunity of effectually amending the Bill in Committee of the Whole House, for no Amendment of any importance could be carried except those proposed by Ministers themselves. This was a Bill which would pass in another place; in fact, some of them believed that it had been drawn to be passed in another place. But if Amendments were to be made after this Resolution was passed, they would be Amendments passed not by the House of Commons but by the House of Lords.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that the Prime Minister, in introducing this Resolution, had informed them that it was a novel procedure; but the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the first attempt to apply it was in the case of the Plural Voting Bill last session, when, However, the Resolution was passed after the House had entered on the consideration of the Report stage. This Army Bill made a very large demand on the House in one peculiar way. Those who remembered the debate on the Second Reading would recollect that in the speech of the Secretary of State for War many changes were foreshadowed in connection with the right hon. Gentleman's original scheme. But at present not a single Amendment appeared on the Paper relating to those changes, and the House did not know whether the changes were to be made by the Bill or not. They

  1383
  were to be allowed at any rate a very narrow margin of time to discuss Amendments, except those which might be put down by Ministers themselves. It had been said that the Bill would not be passed without full discussion of the main merits of its financial and constitutional proposals. But there were interesting details in other and minor clauses of the Bill which should be considered by the House; and there was nothing in the Resolution which provided that those clauses should be discussed at all. On the allotted days all Amendments except Government Amendments would be swept away into the waste-paper basket. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was perfectly right in saying that there were some points in certain classes of Bills upon which, if thoroughly discussed by the House, a different view might be taken from that of the Minister in charge of the Bill, not as a matter of censure on the Minister or Government, but from consideration of the various questions discussed. He thought that this proposal was one of the most dangerous innovations that had ever been introduced in regard to the procedure of the House. In the case of a Bill of importance the main principles were generally fully discussed on Clause 1 or Clause 2, and it was only after that that the guillotine was brought in. No doubt the Government were obliged sometimes to undertake the duty of curtailing debate, but if a Bill was non-controversial and did not raise great Party issues it seemed to him that it was a most dangerous precedent to introduce the principle of this Resolution, and the Opposition were entitled to enter a strong protest against it—all the more strongly when they remembered what had taken place during the past few weeks. During the debate on the new Rules of Procedure it was stated that no first-class Bills were to be sent to Grand Committees—that they would be retained for Committee of the Whole House, and that in the case of important measures sent to Grand Committees full power would be retained over them by the House. But under this Resolution the Government did not intend to give the House the same opportunity of consideration as would be given in the case of Bills sent upstairs. The Government gave evidence of that by the concession they made in regard to the discussion on Report
  1384
  stage of Bills which came downstairs from Grand Committees. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that this Resolution would give a great deal more power to the House of Lords than they would otherwise have; and those who desired that the House of Commons should remain in possession of its full liberties could not accept the Resolution as it stood. He himself had put forward a scheme for the appointment of a Standing Business Committee of the House which should arrange the business of the House and draw up a time-table, but it was not accepted, although he thought it better than the proposals of the Government.
  MR. ASHLEYthought that the case put forward by the Opposition against the Government guillotine proposals had been greatly strengthened by two speeches from the Ministerial side of the House. He presumed that the Army Bill was a measure of considerable importance, and no one could say that nine days were sufficient to enable it to be discussed and dealt with with deliberation and care. The Secretary for War had said that time must be given to the War Office in regard to the pattern of the new cavalry sword, but they had already taken a year to deal with that subject, and if they were to take eighteen months surely they could give the House greater time for the consideration of the entire reorganisation of the Army. He did not for a moment dispute that it was sometimes absolutely necessary to apply the closure automatically, especially in the case of a measure, such as the Education Act of last year, which excited keen religious controversy. The time came in regard to that Bill when the Government saw they must apply the closure, but he would ask the House to say whether in regard to this particular measure there had been any sign on the part of those who opposed any detail—very few opposed it in principle—of a desire to offer captious opposition to the Bill. It was a measure of great length, and if the eight and a half pages of Amendments were looked at, he defied the Secretary of State for War to say that any of them were captious or obstructive. They might be Amendments with which the right hon. Gentleman did not agree,

  1385
  but they were put forward by hon. Members to express their feelings, and it seemed hard that they should be debarred from bringing them forward. He had a proposal which had for its object that the Militia when they joined the Army should retain their territorial name. That might be an impossible proposal or one which the Government could not adopt, but he did not think it could be suggested that it did not deserve some sort of discussion and consideration. He did not, however, see how, under the proposed arrangements, it could ever be discussed any more than the new clauses of private Members. He thought some sort of change should be made in the way in which these guillotine Resolutions were brought in, and his hon. friend for Rye had a suggestion on the Paper that Mr. Speaker should appoint a Committee to allocate the time for the discussion of different proposals. It seemed to him that was an excellent suggestion, although it was somewhat hard that Mr. Speaker should have another difficult task placed upon him. Under the present system it was the people who were interested in cutting short discussion on the Bill—the Government—who allocated the time, and it was possible, having regard to human nature, that if they saw an Amendment down which might embarrass them and cause some of their supporters to vote against them, they should so arrange their guillotine Resolution as to prevent the discussion of that Amendment. He thought they ought to guard against that, and if they could arrange for an impartial tribunal to deal with the question of those guillotine Resolutions a great deal of the objection to them would be taken away. Under existing circumstances he should oppose the Resolution.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that there were really two questions before the House, both of which were great importance. The first question was the propriety of this innovation and of the Government bringing in a Resolution of this character before the Committee stage had began. With that phase of the Resolution the Prime Minister had in the main dealt with, but he had, not touched upon the other question which he wished to bring before the House. In the main the Prime Minister, had excused himself for the policy he was
  1386
  pursuing and said he would prefer other courses to this violent proceeding, but those who had heard the speech of the Prime Minister and the reply of the Leader of the Opposition would agree that they might leave the matter where it was as the argument was complete, and until somebody reinforced the Prime Minister's somewhat meagre statement he was content to leave it there. But there was another question, namely, that of applying this novel principle to this particular Bill and the manner in which it was to be applied. He thought they were entitled at some early stage of the debate to hear a speech from the Secretary of State for War, because he imagined that the right hon. Gentleman was the responsible person for thinking that nine days was sufficient time in which to discuss the Bill and for having allocated the days to the various clauses. This was a Bill to which a proceeding of that kind ought, never have been applied. To have done so seemed to him to be somewhat of a wanton act on the part of the Government and one in which he was surprised to think the right hon. Gentleman acquiesced, because he had certainly understood from him in the course of the previous debate that he was in favour of discussing the Bill downstairs in this House and not upstairs in a Committee room. He also understood from the right hon. Gentleman that it was not unreasonable to hope that an amicable arrangement might have been arrived at. It had not come to his ears that any amicable arrangement had been suggested, although no doubt it would have done had such a suggestion been made. Personally, he would have been glad if such an arrangement could have been arrived at. Nine days were too few for the discussion in view of the magnitude of the proposals before them and their very far-reaching effect upon the military organisation of the country, and the allocation of the time was, in the opinion of the Opposition, inappropriate to the relative importance of the matters to be dealt with. Under such a Resolution it was impossible either for the Opposition or for the supporters of the Government who were interested in particular forces to bring certain definite matters of importance before the House. Therefore, the point was taken that it was not merely that the total number of

  1387
  days was too few, but that the time allotted to particular subjects made it impossible to peg an argument to one particular point when the Government were unwilling that such a point should be raised. Those who had superintended the passage of Bills through the House knew that the Government often gained in time and added to the beneficence of their measures if they disposed of certain issues before they proceeded to the consideration of other portions of the Bill; but when the House came to work under this iron rule it would be detrimental to their proceedings. They would not be able to bring discussions to a head, and matters of far-reaching importance would be passed without due discussion and without the possibility of being afterwards reviewed. They had no complaint to make of the right hon. Gentleman's treatment of the Bill in its earlier stages. He had told them over and over again that he was open to argument on certain points. The right hon. Gentleman went, he thought, so far as to say that he would entertain the idea of the larger portion of the men in the Militia enlisting in the special Reserve. That was opening a door which might lead to very large consequences. It would be a modification of the Bill which might reconcile him to its provisions far more than was at present the case. Was it to be said that before they knew the full power and value of that undertaking and the exact meaning of the right hon. Gentleman the portion of the Bill dealing with the subject was to be passed? Many other similar indications had been given by the Secretary of State in regard to which he (Mr. Wyndham) did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could do justice to the hopes he had raised if the House were to be bound by this iron discipline. As to the allocation of the time he also wished to pass some criticism. This Bill was somewhat of a draftsman's Bill, and was not a good Bill for displaying the relevancy of the subject matter. He ventured to think also the allocation of time was a draftsman's allocation and did not satisfy any critic of the Bill or any supporter of the Bill who wished to bring out a certain point. He thought he could make that clear. A day was given to Clauses 1 and 2 and another day to Clauses 3 and 4, and the finance of the Bill was to be
  1388
  discussed during those days. The financial aspects of these clauses and of the whole Bill were very important, and he was not sure that they could discuss them on the financial Resolution. It was always a matter of doubt, because that question was decided by the Chair with more or less elasticity. He did not understand that any body of opinion in the House was opposed to the right hon. Gentleman endeavouring to establish a Territorial Force which should be more efficient than the existing Volunteers, and the only two really important points embraced in Clauses 1 to 4 were questions of finance and of the value the nation got for its money. He marked in Clause 2, moreover, a tendency to go back to the danger of the old principle of the muster under which the officer got so much for the men he mustered. These associations were going to be given a certain amount of money for different purposes. When they were dealing with the allocation of money for the purposes of the payment of troops the only points which were had regard to were the number of men and efficiency. Those two important points were embraced in Clauses 1 and 4. Another subject of importance touched upon by the Prime Minister was the system whereby the right hon. Gentleman was going to divide the commands from the administration. It might be a good plan to divide these commands, but he doubted whether it was wise to have the two covering the same district. But important as those points were there was nothing in them that was irretrievable. If the right hon. Gentleman found that there were executive and administrative generals covering the same ground and that there was an excess of staff he could alter it. The right hon. Gentleman had given them a hint that he might find some stronger and fresh method of finance and some different system of administration. He made no complaint about the giving of two days to discuss Clauses 1 and 4, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had favoured these clauses to the prejudice of clauses which raised points of equal, and even of greater importance, dealing with sound finance and complexity of administration. And, inasmuch as these questions involved the taking of steps which were irretrievable, their opinion was that the greater part of the time at the disposal of the

  1389
  House should be given to these subjects, and that the House should be free to keep the discussion alive round these points of novel departure until it under-stood what the Government meant and was seen to be generally favourable to those intentions. The Secretary of State would be the first to deplore rushing the Bill through under these circumstances, because he would recognise that it had not the support of the nation and the country behind it, and, therefore, would undoubtedly fail. The present allocation of time rushed some of the clauses of great importance through in company with a number of others. During the early part of the Bill the only proposal bearing on this great issue was the sub-section of Clause 6, which gave power in regard to the turning of portions of the Territorial Force into bodies or corps and to amalgamate portions of that force with the other forces of the Army. That was a clause of such latitude that it would take three hours of close, reasoned debate to elicit from the Minister exactly what it was that the Government were asking leave to do. If the House was not under these rules the probable course would be to move, not as a dilatory Motion to waste time, to postpone that sub-section and put it back in the Bill among other clauses to which it was germane. There was this clause giving these powers and Clause 33 giving similar powers, and between them a whole lot of clauses dealing entirely with different matters. The proper way of procedure was to group the clauses and have a free debate during the remaining days, even if there was not to be a free debate of Clauses 1 and 4. He would sooner see Clauses 1 to 4 guillotined, and then as many days allocated as the Government could give to the rest of the Bill, so as to arrive at matters of first-class importance. The questions of first-rate importance I were three: (1) that the training for war should be prior to the crisis of war; (2) in making provision for training these men they should not discard some of the men who were now trained more adequately than was proposed; and (3) if such provision was made, thon the pay and the emoluments should be sufficient to get the right class of men for sufficient early training at a sufficiently early period. Those three points had never been put fully before the House, and they had
  1390
  never been understood nor assented to by the House.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, made an appeal to him, to which he ventured to give the strongest response. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman about taking into consideration the great body of opinion outside as well as inside the House, but he was combatted by the right hon. Gentleman's own arguments, for not even the right hon. Gentleman during the course of his speech could prevail on the House to show that there was the least agitation prevailing about any infraction of the constitutional liberties of the House. Scarcely a dozen Members were present a short time ago, and everywhere there was an acquiescence in that attitude on the part of the House that the Government in acting thus was doing a sensible thing. The right hon. Gentleman had given a number of instances of various matters which, however, grouped themselves under two heads. First, he had indicated that the whole procedure was an innovation, which was admitted, and the second was that the time allotted was too short for the Bill. What were the circumstances? The Bill had not only been debated at some length on the introduction and the Second Reading, but there had been a great deal of discussion as to the Army on the Estimates. They were now discussing the reorganisation of the Territorial Forces and the provision for wastage of war by means of the new third battalions. The latter part of the Bill merely conferred certain powers of administration which might be used or not. But when a Bill came up for consideration in Committee it came before the House as a broad scheme of administration whose principles had received the general assent of the House. All the Bill did was to leave the Government the requisite power to carry out a plan of organisation which had already been debated by the House. He was sorry he had not made himself clear about the Artillery. What really happened was that he had laid down certain plans and time was required to carry those plans out. He was at work on them, but he had not taken a single man off the Artillery yet. Whether it was so, or whether it was not so, was a matter left wholly untouched by any clause of the Bill which they had to consider.

  1391
  Therefore, he thought they might leave the Artillery when they came to the allocation of time in Committee. It was the same with all questions of general principles of that kind. When they got to the last part of the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, they had followed the precedent which had been observed in Bills in regard to Army reorganisation in the past. laterally and strictly two-thirds of the topics discussed on the First and Second Readings were irrelevent when they came to deal with this Bill in Committee, and that was one of the things which he had in his mind when he made this allocation of time. As to the question of associations, he thought it a very important one, and that there would be a great deal of discussion upon it; but there were two or three broad principles which could easily be compassed in the course of a single day. The Bill had been very carefully drafted and matters had been arranged in such a fashion that they had been able to bring them within the compass of the allocation. The second day's work dealt with questions of finance, and again he would make the observation which he had made before, that the Bill did not refer to the way in which the financial machinery was to be worked out. He had promised his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean to lay a statement upon the Table of the House before they went into Committee, or on going into Committee, on that point He would do so only to show the fashion in which the Government contemplated using the administrative powers arising under the clause. They meant to preserve the financial control of Parliament, and the Bill did not touch the question one way or the other. When they came to the parts of the Bill which they would be discussing in the next two days, as the Prime Minister had said, they would be discussing things most of which were in the present rules of the Volunteers, and the other matters were simply reproductions of the clauses in the Yeomanry and Volunteer Acts. The whole importance of the matter was how they would use these powers, and that would come up in future for discussion, because if this system were adopted, a Vote for the Territorial Force would be put down each year on which the arrangements for the rear would be subject to the review of the House of Commons. The hon.
  1392
  Member for Ashford, who was a very great authority on this matter, had been misled by the notion that in the Committee stage on the Bill all those questions which had been discussed in connection with the scheme, the number of adjutants and the pay of the Artillery forces, and all those topics which belonged to administration, would come up on the clauses; but if they read the Bill they would see that beyond the principle of organisation nothing else appeared in the Bill. Once they passed the Second Reading, and they had passed that stage, they had disposed of such questions as whether the Militia, Volunteers, or Yeomanry were to be separate bodies. That was essentially a Second Reading question, and when the House had passed the Second Reading by a majority of over three to one against the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment it must be taken that the House had assented to the broad principle that they were to organise on a two-line and not on a three-line basis. If that were so, it was plain that they could not discuss that Second Reading point again and again on the clauses.
  MR. WYNDHAMwas understood to ask a question about the Militia joining the third battalions.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the Militiaman like everybody else could be enlisted in the third battalions, into the special reserve, and thereupon he would become liable to go abroad. He would be very glad to see individual Militiamen enlist into those third battalions, and to see their officers joining the reserve of officers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover misunderstood him if he thought that he suggested that the Militia was the unit which would become the third battalions.
  MR. WYNDHAMwas understood to state that under certain circumstances 250 of one battalion of Militia would be accepted for the Reserve.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he would be only too pleased to have 250 Militiamen individually; more than that, he would take 500 if he could get them All he asked was that they should enlist individually. It would be all the bettor if they had an influence upon each other,

  1393
  and if they could bring in a reserve of officers whom they could use for the purpose of training. That was nothing new; it had always been a part of the plan. They had not tried to make it difficult for people who served in the Militia to take a new part in the organisation of the Army. On the contrary, they had tried to make it as easy as they could, and they would continue be try to make it easy. The only relevance of that observation was for the purpose of pointing out that this question of the Militia joining the third battalions was not prejudiced one way or the other by the last part of the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. This Resolution was doubtless an innovation, but he hoped that it would be the beginning of a more sensible course which not only this Parliament but future Parliaments would follow. He thought it would be enormously better that they should try to make a better distribution of their time in future. He quite agreed that it would have been better if they had had machinery ready to hand to do it now but that not being so, and the principle being one which they believed the majority of the House were agreed upon, they had done their best in fie matter. The misapplication of the time of Parliament was becoming a sandal. He was responsible for the allocation of time; he might have erred, but if he had tarred it was bona fide. He had tried to do his best to parcel out the time allowed in a way that seemed to him to be fair At first he thought that five days would be enough, and he still thought so but he had allowed six in order to leave a magin. He thought, knowing the inside of the Bill, that full time had been left, bearing in mind the discussion; which had taken place on the First and Second Readings with regard to the principles of the measure, and that they had now only to deal with the powers which depended on those principles. His mine would not be rigidly closed to suggestions in Committee. They wanted to make the best Bill they could out of this, and consequently he hoped it would be found that they were open to suggestions. Hut it followed that in order to make the best use of the time before them it was necessary to provide in some fashion for its distribution. He admitted with his right hon. friend that this allocation of time was a new practice, but he hoped that in future it would be very fruitful, not only
  1394
  to hon. Members on that side of the House, but to hon. Members on the other side.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he did not rise for the purpose of making any complaint regarding this innovation; he thought that every Government in the time to come in that House would require to ask for powers such as were now being asked for. But what he would suggest was that the Government in allocating the various days for the consideration of the Bill had been a little bit niggardly. The fact was that if this scheme was carried, not a single Amendment would have the slightest chance of being passed unless a private Member had been successful in persuading the Minister for War that his Amendment was necessary. The vicious part of the scheme was that it took away from the House its power to amend the Bill and placed it in the hands of two Gentlemen who conferred together behind Mr. Speaker's Chair or in any other private place. He felt certain that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to do anything of the kind. Those whom he (Mr. Macdonald) represented had several Amendments that they would like to put down; but they were all economists, and they wanted to serve the national finance. Now really why should they take the trouble to put down those Amendments? not a single word of them would be discussed. At any rate the more important of them would not be discussed under this scheme, and it was simply wasting public money to add to the agenda paper Amendments which they knew there would be no possible chance of considering. There was another very important consideration, and it was the fact that this scheme would take away considerably the authority of this House. Eight hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in Opposition used to protest very loudly against handing over the authority of the House to the Cabinet. He; ventured to suggest that under this; scheme they were handing over more of the authority of the House to the Cabinet. The defence which the right hon. Gentleman had made for this proposal seemed to him to be very inadequate. He had told them that the principle of the Bill had been accepted on the First and

  1395
  Second Readings, and that was perfectly true. He regretted that the new Standing Orders were not put in operation with regard to this Bill. There were certain clauses, not of detail which followed from certain general principles which had been accepted, but of principle, and they ought to be fully discussed. The better course would have been for the more detailed clauses to have gone upstairs to one of the Standing Committees, and those other clauses to have remained for further discussion in the House. The first three clauses contained matters of principle which were not discussed on the Second Reading. There were certain provisions in Clauses 2 and 4 which hon. Members voted for on the understanding that they would be able to move Amendments so as to change those clauses, not only in detail, but in regard to their scope. There was, for example, the relation between the county associations and the Universities. That involved a great political principle. Thon there were the provisions with regard to cadet corps. That was a question that was not a matter of detail following by logical necessity upon the principle accepted on the Second Reading. Those were matters of great political and civil importance which the House as a whole ought to discuss and decide upon a definite Amendment and not merely upon the general debate. They wanted some explanation of the sub-section dealing with county associations and Reservists and ex-soldiers. They wished to know what the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind when he put that sub-section in the Bill. But Clauses 1 and 2 were going to be dealt with on one day. Clause 1 dealt with the question of county associations, and when that subject came on there would not be much chance to discuss anything else on that day. In Clauses 3 and 4 the important financial provisions were placed in the forefront, so that neither on the first nor the second day would they have an opportunity of discussing that very fundamental point of the relation between the civil life of the country and its military organisation. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that behind him there were very strong opinions hold on these points, and there was also a very strong feeling upon them outside the House. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that they ought to have a day for discussing the
  1396
  county associations, and the next day might be devoted to a discussion of the very important alteration proposed in regard to the civil relationship of the people with the military force. He did not desire to embarrass the Government in regard to this guillotine Resolution; in fact the Labour Party would assist them in carrying it; but he hoped that the Secretary for War would meet them on the points he had raised, namely, those of civil and political importance, which were not matters of detail, but of principle, which ought to be discussed more fully in the House, upon which there ought to be a sort of ad hoc discussion and not merely the discussion of general principles which took place when the Government got such a big majority on the Second Reading.
  LORD R. CECILmoved as an Amendment to the Prime Minister's Motion, "That it is inexpedient that any further resolutions dealing with the allocation of time for particular Bills should be passed except as part of a general system by which the liberties of this House shall be properly safeguarded. "He said the speech they had just heard from the hon. Member for Leicester displayed the attitude with which the Secretary for War seemed disposed to approach this matter. There were under this scheme very serious principles which would have to be discussed. The War Secretary had referred to the indifference of the House to the question of the general principles involved in the Resolution and he seemed to regard that indifference with some satisfaction. He admitted that the Ministerial side of the House at any rate seemed very indifferent whether this new departure in their procedure were carried or not, but the War Minister and the Prime Minister were evidently under no delusion as to the magnitude of the change that was being made in the procedure of the House of Commons. It was not only that it was the first time the guillotine had been applied before there had been even an attempt at discussion in Committee, but it was the nature of the Bill to which the guillotine was being applied. No one had suggested that the discussion on the Second Reading was unduly prolonged. There was a strictly relevant discussion

  1397
  taken part in by hon. Members equally on both sides of the House, and he was at a loss to understand what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the proceedings in the House might be made the means of impeding the progress of business. He did not think such a suggestion ought to have been made in view of the way the Opposition had treated this Bill up to the present. It was undoubtedly a measure which ought to be submitted to the free and unfettered discussion of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons sanctioned this Resolution it would deliberately lay down that for the future all discussions upon important Bills should be carried on under similar arrangements. What effect would that have upon the Constitution of the country? It meant transferring the power of legislation from the House to the Cabinet. That was what the House was doing, and it was being done with the assistance of the votes of the Liberal Party. As had already been pointed out by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean one result of that would be to increase the necessity for a Second Chamber to deal with measures which were passed sub silentio in this House. The proposed procedure meant the gradual extinction of the unofficial Member. If hon. Members would consider the Parliamentary history of the last century they would conclude that this was the greatest change that had come over the House of Commons. In 1784 when Pitt was returned by a popular mandate with a great majority, and when he enjoyed immense popularity, he was utterly unable to pass through the House of Commons any measure unless it had obtained the reasonable assent of the House. That was the case right down to the time of Mr. Gladstone, and except on certain questions the House of Commons constantly took its own line, as hon. Members were allowed to vote for; what they thought right and not simply for what the Cabinet thought right. The change might be partly due to these Resolutions and partly to other causes, but while it no doubt affected the Opposition it affected hon. Members on the Government side even more. It utterly deprived them of all power of producing the slightest effect on the legislation of the country. They all
  1398
  knew that there were in the House of Commons many hon. Members who had great experience in administrative matters, but for any useful work they did they might be replaced by three or four hundred men selected from any street in the neighbourhood. They were merely and necessarily under these rules ministerial voting machines. The other great result was and must be that the whole of the debates in the House entirely lost their reality. What was the use of attempting serious argument if they knew that the Minister had merely to sit silent, that at the end of the evening the guillotine would be applied, and that the ministerial voting machines would come in from the library and the smoking-room to vote down arguments which they had not been in the House to hear? It was really a very serious matter, and one which must be considered by hon. Members sitting, not only on the Opposition side, but in all parts of the House. He was convinced that unless something could be done to restore the reality of their debates and the independence of Members, the reputation and the personnel of the House would seriously suffer, and the result would be progressively to throw more and more power into the hands of the Government of the day, so that the proceedings in the House of Commons would become less and less important, and they would have destroyed that which they valued so highly—the representative nature of the Government and of Parliament. He felt that it was not only those Resolutions that had contributed to that position; it was much more largely, no doubt, the rigidity of the Party system. That was not a matter that could be dealt with by any Resolution of the House. It must be dealt with by some combined attack on the Party machine, and that must be by some Corrupt Practices Act or something of that kind. But these Resolutions did make the House of Commons a less independent, less real, and less genuine representative Assembly and less able to reflect the opinion of the people of the country. He felt very strongly that if they were to have such rules the House should insist that they should not be a kind of Act of Attainder against Parliamentary freedom on particular measures; They should have a general system or plan of dealing with discussions in the House and applying to all measures, but

  1399
  not applied at the will of the Government to a particular form of coercion, or to a particular Bill. Whether the best plan would be by means of a Committee of Business, which would settle at the beginning of each session or of each measure the particular amount of time to be allotted to that measure, or by some other plan, he was not quite certain, and he did not ask the House to express any opinion as to what the precise plan should be. His own inclination was to believe, not that a Committee of business was the right solution, but that some greatly extended power should be conferred upon Mr. Speaker with the view of curtailing unnecessary and useless debate, which was not really advanced in the interest of any object which was legitimately desired by any Member of the House. He himself thought that what would be more useful than a Committee of Rules, or an extended power of closure conferred on the Speaker, would be the restoration to Members of their Parliamentary self-respect, the re-creation of independence of hon. Members, so that they could appeal with some hope of success by reason and argument to hon. Members who constituted for the time being the majority of the House. He begged to move.
  MR. MILDMAYin seconding, thought that it was universally recognised by all on the Opposition side of the House that the Secretary of State for War was the last man to wish that the discussion on his proposals should be unduly curtailed. A good many of them knew that he was conscientiously desirous that his Bill should receive all the consideration due to so important a measure. And further they acknowledged that so eminently fair was his nature that least of all the Members of the Cabinet was he likely to have assented to these closing proposals as part of a policy of forcing a number of undiscussed Bills through the House of Commons with a view to bombarding and confounding the House of Lords. The time allotted for the discussion of the various stages of this Bill might be adequate or inadequate. To the Opposition, naturally, it appeared that, in comparison with guillotine proposals on
  1400
  other measures, the allotted time erred on the side of inadequacy. But however that might be, that was not the quarter raised by the Amendment. The noble Lord who proposed the Amendment and they who supported it wished to give the House of Commons the opportunity of declaring that these Resolutions dealing with the allocation of time for different stages of particular Bills were a hand to mouth expedient, and an unsatisfactory method of dealing with the difficulty. They wished the House to declare that it was time that the difficulties were properly faced. They wished for a declaration that the duty of laying down general rules in this connection, applicable to all Bills, should no longer be shirked. The Prime Minister in the course of his speech had taken great credit to himself for the improvement in his guillotine methods, but he (Mr. Mildmay) could see no improvement. The only change was that the guillotine was proposed at an earlier date and was to be more drastic in its action. The Prime Minister had described in his speech how they had been in the habit in the past of floundering through the first half of a Bill and scrambling through the second half. The process was to be very little changed; in future, it appeared, they were to scramble through the whole of the Bill. Luckily this was not a measure which, so far, had been provocative of violent Part antagonisms. Most devoutly did he hope that hon. Members would not allow it to become so. But let them take the two Education Bills which of late years had been carried through the House of Commons by both Parties. Could the guillotine Resolutions in connection with either of those Bills have been discussed under circumstances more fatal to the fair and dispassionate settlement of a time-table? Governments in the past had been in the habit, first of introducing a Bill, perhaps a very controversial Bill, and then, after days of heated discussion thereon, when full play had been given to Party bitterness, when the Members of the House were all on edge, coming down to the House and trying to force through a Resolution curtailing debate on the remaining stages to an extent which invariably appeared to the Opposition to be wholly unjustifiable. The necessity of doing something to cope with the excessive discussion on the Committee

  1401
  stage must have been recognised by all. Many years ago the Leader of the Opposition had said—
  "It is absolutely necessary to do something to curtail the efforts of those who desire to deal with legislation not by arguments, bat by obstruction."
  The power of applying the closure had been effectual in preventing undue discussion on the First, Second, and Third Readings of Bills. But it was not effectual at the Committee stage. They all knew that a Bill could be swamped by the weight of Amendments. The closure applied to each Amendment was an impossible way of coping with the difficulty. But, on the other hand, every fair-minded Member of the House must admit that closure by compartment was a most clumsy expedient and quite indefensible, because under such schemes most important Amendments, and most vital provisions of the Bill might go undiscussed. The fact that there had been or was likely to be obstruction did not condone the wholesale slaughter of Amendments good, bad, and indifferent. Then there was another argument which ought to weigh heavily with the supporters of the Government. Let them consider how closure by compartments so repeatedly employed had over and over again proved the usefulness and, indeed, the absolute necessity of the House of Lords. That must, he thought, be very distasteful to hon. Gentlemen opposite. He would put it to them, would it have been possible to guillotine the greater part of the second Home Rule Bill, to force the greater part of that Bill through the Committee stage without any discussion at all, but for the fact that the House of Commons knew that the House of Lords was behind it? Let them take a less ambitious measure—the Education Bill which was passed through the House of Commons last session. Was he not right in saying that largely, if not wholly, in consequence of the curtailment of debate in the House of Commons the Government Amendments passed in the House of Lords to their own Bill had bulked more largely than all the Amendments carried by the Opposition in that House?They knew the debates on these guillotine proposals so perfectly well. Each side always accused the other of being a worse offender than itself in the past. The same tu quoque arguments were repeated, there were the same recriminations which tired those
  1402
  who had listened to them for twenty years past. The Government had a large majority in the House; he appealed to them to take their courage in both hands and to tackle the question. It was not an easy question to tackle. Mr. Speaker might be unwilling to assume a greater responsibility than the heavy responsibility which was already his. But if he were willing to give to the Government his valuable help and advice in this connection, and if the Government approached the consideration of the question with an earnest desire to act in accordance with the general feeling throughout the House, he thought that it ought not to be impossible to improve upon the present guillotine methods of dealing with the difficulty, which methods must be so unsatisfactory, and, indeed, so repugnant to all who had the efficiency of the House at heart.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out all after the word 'that' to the end, in order to add the words ' it is inexpedient that any farther Resolutions dealing with the allocation of time for particular Bills should be passed except as part of a general system by which the liberties of this House shall be properly safeguarded.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
  Question proposed, "That the words ' the Committee stage and Report stage of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill,' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SOARES:said he had a good deal of sympathy with the observations which had been made upon this matter by the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment. Like all Members who had known what it was to sit in Opposition, and to be part of a small minority, he did not like guillotine Resolutions. But under existing methods of doing business they could not be avoided by any Government. They were a kind of a Government net to catch the torpedoes of the Opposition, and if they did not use their powers they would fall into disgrace through having their Bills and schemes destroyed. The principal object of an Opposition in the House of Commons, as a matter of fact, was twofold: first to turn out the Government of the day as speedily as they could; and secondly, to prevent the passage of as many Government Bills as possible which, to them,

  1403
  were obnoxious. It did not matter whether it was a Tory Party or a Liberal Party who were in Opposition. A Liberal Opposition would try to prevent obnoxious Tory Bills becoming law, and a Tory Opposition would try to prevent obnoxious Liberal Bills becoming law. In order to attain that end it was necessary for the Opposition to discuss measures at considerable length, and to occupy as much of the time of the Government as they possibly could, because in that event the fewer Government measures would be passed into law. For that reason he had never spoken of obstruction in a disparaging manner, as he recognised that under existing conditions it was a fair Parliamentary weapon. He well remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, speaking on a guillotine Resolution, with candour said that he had obstructed Government measures when he was in Opposition, and that when he was in Opposition again he hoped to obstruct again. He was not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not correct in his employment of obstruction as a fair Parliamentary weapon. But in order to prevent these methods being successful the Government were obliged to pass Resolutions like the one now proposed, which also was a fair Parliamentary weapon. Let them never forget that the country, as a whole, did not mind how drastic their methods of closure in the House were; but what they wanted was that they should get their work done. He thought the Government should make some alteration in regard to guillotine Resolutions, because they seemed to have one for every separate Bill. He thought that all Bills ought to be read a second time early in the session, and thon there should be a comprehensive Resolution with a time table which might be applied to them all. Of course, they must always protect the rights of minorities, and they should consult the Opposition with regard to the allocation of the time. The Government should say how many days they could afford to devote to a Bill and ask the opinion of the Opposition as to the manner in which they should be allocated. He was inclined to think that any Opposition which understood its business, as the present one did, would agree to such a proposition, as
  1404
  under the present practice the Opposition lost valuable Parliamentary privileges and opportunities. What happened now after a guillotine Resolution had been passed? The Opposition usually commenced, as soon as the Bill was brought in, to discuss some unimportant Amendment. Speeches were made on it on both sides of the House, it was often ended by closure, and no consideration was paid to the fact that at 10.30 the guillotine would fall. In this way the Opposition lost valuable Parliamentary opportunities. They lost the opportunity of making speeches on difficult and embarrassing Amendments. True it was that no one had much hope of converting the Minister in charge of the Bill by such speeches, but it must always be remembered that speeches in that House were partly delivered in order to influence opinion outside, and to lose the opportunity of making such speeches was for the Opposition a serious loss. Then, too, under existing methods they frequently lost the opportunity of making supporters of the Government vote on embarrassing Amendments. Such Amendments could be moved to almost every Bill, and to lee supporters of the Government escape from voting was to lose a valuable Opposition opportunity. If, therefore, by means of a business Committee some such arrangement as he had suggested could be brought about they would at once see the end of obstruction. It would become an injury to the Opposition, and hence would speedily be considered bad Parliamentary form. And, as a matter of fact they would, never abolish obstruction until it became bad Parliamentary form. So far he had dealt with the matter from a purely Party point of view, but of course there was a much higher point of view, that of the public service. In the interests of the country it was advisable that every difficult point of importance should be debated across the floor of the House. When obstruction was ended, that could be done, legislation would be better and the influence of Parliament would increase.
  MR. BOWLESsaid that the hon. Member for Barnstaple had made an exceedingly shrewd and valuable contribution to this extremely important discussion. The hon. Member

  1405
  had admitted that Resolutions of this kind were an abuse, but he had defended them on the ground that in the present state of business some such resort as the guillotine was necessary to any Government in power. The hon. Gentleman had said that he had never spoken disparagingly of obstruction; and they on the Opposition side of the House were obliged to him for the statement, for they all recognised that the hon. Gentleman was a considerable authority on the matter. It was not very long ago that a very important Motion standing in the: name of the hon. Member referring to a very technical question was, on the sole request of a single member of the Cabinet, no doubt to his dismay and consternation, withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman had said that such drastic treatment of the House of Commons was necessary because it was imperative that they should get on with their work. It was important to consider for a moment what was the cause of the confusion and what was the work which the House of Commons did. Was it; that when the Government produced an important Bill or a certain mumber of Bills the whole work of the House of Commons consisted in passing them into law with the greatest expedition? If that was really the correct view of the function of this House, Resolutions of this kind were absolutely necessary; but if that was not their function then such Motions were absolutely indefensible, mischievous, and dangerous in a high degree. On the Opposition; Benches they had recently remarked as extraordinary that in what he believed was called a democratic Parliament, under a democratic Government, the first action taken should be to destroy the House of. Commons as a democratic body. That was a very significant and formidable state of things. The hon. Gentleman had suggested that the people of the country did not care about the deliberative qualities of the House of Commons, and that all they wanted was to have forced upon them without discussion through a muzzled Chamber the decrees of the Government. If that were true the usefulness of the House was entirely destroyed, and it became perfectly ridiculous for any man with any views at all to give up his business time and his leisure and to come and sit there merely in order to help forward the democratic
  1406
  desires of right hon. Gentlemen. The truth was that the function of the House was not merely to pass Bills but to pass good and workable measures, and he hold that measures merely proceeding from the back rooms of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench and put through the House without any opportunity being given for really discussing them, would never be either good or workable in the real sense of those words, and would afterwards have to be amended or reversed, which would take up the time of Parliament in later years. He utterly disliked the whole of these proceedings, and he did not admit that it was necessary to limit even the total time which the House was to take in considering a Bill of this gigantic and fundamental importance. He believed it was only by letting the House of Commons "go" at a Bill of this kind that they would make a workable piece of legislation, arrive at a final settlement, and save time. But whilst on general grounds he objected to the Resolution, he was bound also to say that when they came to the particular divisions in regard to time he was even more confirmed in his opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had said he had given a great deal of trouble and consideration to the allocation of the days, so that proper time should be given to each point of importance. He (Mr. Bowles) was no authority whatever upon Army matters, and there was only one question in the Bill upon which he felt fit or capable to say anything at all, but that was an extremely important point. He referred to the financial Resolution and the financial portions of the Bill. The House would observe that according to the right hon. Gentleman's plan they were to have only the fag end of one day to deal with the financial Resolution, and the fag end of the next day to deal with the Report stage. What did those financial proposals mean? They set up an indefinite number of spending authorities having powers, also perfectly indefinite, over sums of money, which were evidently going to be enormous. The whole of the stupendous power in regard to these moneys was under the Bill to be given to the right hon. Gentleman. In his opinion the finance of the Bill would wreck the scheme in the end, and was the real danger and difficulty in regard to it; but apparently they were to

  1407
  have this tremendous financial revolution forced upon the country without any discussion in the House. The financial clauses might never be reached at all. That surely was not a proper allocation of time, and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would, in his heart at all events, admit that to make a change of that kind under these circumstances was to reduce the House of Commons in its most important aspect to a derogatory position, and to treat it with contempt. He disliked and distrusted the whole of this system of guillotine closure. He believed that it was totally unnecessary, and that arrangements could be made under which the House without provisions of this kind could exercise the great deliberative functions which were its great glory. It was not to pass Bills that the House of Commons existed, but to discuss them and to see that they were not ridiculous, unnecessary, and dangerous. The House of Commons was not there to support Parties, but to control and enlighten, and when these invaluable privileges were attacked, as they were by the Resolution before the House, he should always feel bound to resist proposals of that kind in general, and he felt bound to resist in particular these proposals, which produced a revolution in the character of the House, would go far beyond this present Parliament, and would have a far-reaching effect upon the legislation under which the country was to live in future.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid his only excuse for intervening was that, in common with many hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, he wished this Bill to pass with unanimity, believing as he did that if it passed leaving any sense of injustice in the minds either of hon. Members below the gangway or of hon. Members opposite the Louse had better not pass it at all. The Bill imposed an obligation upon people who were not obliged to do anything at all, and if it were passed in a manner which gave rise to any sense of injustice its efficiency would be destroyed. Therefore he would not support the proposal of his right hon. friend if he supposed that it would cause a great grievance to hon. Members opposite. He agreed with the noble Lord opposite that the
  1408
  whole of these guillotine Resolutions were detestable, and it was a fact that the more guillotine there was, the more obstruction was provoked, It had been said by an hon. friend of his that there were three ways of governing a country: by bullets, by priests, and by talk, and talk was the best of the three, and so far as they abolished talk they would have to resort to other measures. But while he objected to guillotine Resolutions in general and this one in particular, he would urge upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the time given under this proposal was not really unduly short. He remembered they had in the last Parliament to urge the Leader of the Opposition to give more time for the discussion of another far-reaching scheme of Army reform. The right hon. Gentleman met them with extreme generosity, and took the scheme out of guillotine Resolution and gave them two or three days for the discussion. He remembered, however, the immense difficulty they had in keeping the debate going. The fact was that the number of Members who took part in Army debates was very small, and although when in Opposition they all protested there was not enough time given for them, when it came to the point there was a difficulty in keeping the debate going. It had been so in the past, and he suggested it might be so in regard to this Bill, if his right hon. friend were to regard this Resolution as being passed not as a law of the Medes and Persians, but as a thing which could be altered. He thought there was a precedent for that, and that similar guillotine Resolutions had been altered after they had been passed. He would urge his right hon. friend to meet the Opposition and give them further time, believing that the Bill could never be a success unless it was accepted by general consent. He thought, however, that when it came to the point there would be ample time for discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought there was much sound sense in what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but it was not so easy to modify guillotine proposals as he suggested. There was a method by which it could be done if the Government were willing parties to the transaction, for all guillotine Resolutions had in them the fact that

  1409
  such a thing was to be done on an allotted day, and if the Government desired to increase the length of time for the Bill, they had only to put down some small measure as the business of the day, and then afterwards discuss the particular Bill to which the guillotine Resolution referred. The flank of the Resolution was then turned. The hon. and gallant Gentleman professed to say that the difficulty of keeping an Army debate going was so great that six days were sufficient for the purpose. His own experience of the past did not load him to take that view. He reminded the House than far larger questions were raised by this Bill than were ever raised by the former Army Bill to which reference had been made, and the time given for discussion was much shorter. The number of questions raised was very large, and he believed it would be found difficult to compress all the questions into six days, with the result that a great number of questions that the House most wanted to discuss would not come before it at all, but would simply be formally pat from the Chair after the fatal hour of ten o'clock arrived. He could not agree with the Secretary of State for War when he said that, so far as this was an enabling Bill, it did not require very lengthened discussion. The House was not discussing this as an enabling but as a positive measure. If it was not a positive measure it was nothing. If it was not intended to create a great change let them not discuss it for six days. The Government had brought in a positive Bill in an enabling form. That, however, might be regarded as more relevant to many other questions than to the particular Amendment which his noble friend had moved. He proposed to vote for that Amendment. He had himself made proposals in favour of a general scheme, and that which seemed to find most favour was one giving to a Business Committee the power of allotting the time to a particular measure The plan of a Business Committee, which should make a plan for the whole session, was one which he was afraid would be beset with great difficulties. He was far from ruling it out as impossible, however, and thought it well worthy of careful discussion. His mind had been rather turning in another direction. He had often wondered whether they could nut make their debates really interesting and
  1410
  important by settling upon a series of propositions in connection with important Bills, which could be discussed seriatim downstairs on the floor of the House, the discussion in each case being stopped by closure; then the Committee upstairs, having been seized of the separate propositions, might be trusted to do the drafting part, the detailed and machinery part, and when the Bill came back to the House on Report it would be felt that all the essential elements had been discussed in the true and only theatre of debate, namely, the floor of the House, and with the full knowledge of the House and the public. In the Committee stage at present it was difficult for anybody outside to follow the course of the debates. The real thing which every body who cared for the House—and nobody outside the House really cared for it—ought to aim at was to try and make their discussions both full and interesting. He had given a great deal of reflection to this problem, and, though he did not profess to have come to a thoroughly satisfactory conclusion, he was inclined to think the plan he had adumbrated promised the best results. He did not think the plan of throwing more responsibility upon the Speaker was a possible one. The House already threw a burden of responsibility upon the Chair which was almost too great, and he could never be a party to increasing the burden. And he thought there were great difficulties in getting the Opposition and the Government to agree as to the amount of time to be given to every Bill. Let them imagine a Committee at work on this Bill. The Secretary of State came down and said he had looked through the Bid with his draftsmen and was convinced that it could be discussed in six days. The Opposition said they could not do anything of the kind, there were many important points to be discussed, and it could not be done in the time. The whole thing would thon break down. He believed they could arrive at some arrangement in this way. They could draw up together the propositions each side wished to have threshed out, and if that were done the debate on each proposition would be finished as other debates were, by closure if not by agreement. Having had to give some considerable thought to this whole question, both as Leader of

  1411
  the House and as Leader of the Opposition, he hoped the House would not mind if in a tentative form he threw out a suggestion, which he was sure was worthy of consideration, and which he thought would be more productive in the long run than any attempt to settle the matter by a Business Committee drawn from both sides of the House. Personally he thought the Government asked the House to deal with too many Bills in the course of the session; but if they threw upon a Committee the duty of deciding how long each Bill was to take, were they to take into account the general programme of the Government in regard to legislation or not? If they did not, how were they going to deal with the allocation of time? He believed his plan would give the House more freedom than it possessed now. A large number of Members who voted for the Second Beading wanted the Bill changed in really important particulars, and those hon. Members would never Live an opportunity of asking the House to come to a decision on the matters in which they were interested. The questions would remain untouched and undealt with, or if dealt with at all they would not be dealt with within the walls of that Assembly. The situation was admittedly a grave one. Everyone must feel that each time one of these closure Resolutions was passed they were not fulfilling either in the eyes of the public or in their own eyes the functions for which they were sent there. They were sent there to debate and to discuss and anything which curtailed debate and discussion pro tanto diminished their utility. He admitted in Opposition, as he had urged when in office, that discussion of details might easily go too far, might easily reach the point when, though not irrelevant and obstructive in the technical sense, it became wearisome and useless. But while admitting all this, he still thought that they could not rest content with these guillotine Resolutions, which were essentially an absurdity when applied to an Assembly the whole reason of whose existence was either to criticise the administrative actions of the Government or to deal with the details of the various legislative proposals which the Government or private Members brought forward. For these reasons he would
  1412
  show his sense of the gravity of the situation by supporting his noble friend in the lobby.
  MR. S. T. EVANSsaid the contributions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in questions of this kind were always important and interesting, but they could not with any advantage discuss the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition on this particular Resolution, though he entirely agreed with him that something would have to be done in the near future if the House was to be an effective and efficient machine. But the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would really add a stage to the proceedings on a Bill, and he did not think any of them desired to add to the number of opportunities for debate, for besides Committee upstairs, they had the First and Second Reading stages, and Report, which afforded ample occasions for debate. But surely the principle which underlay the proposal of the Government was the right one. It was the only time that a Member of the Government had proposed, before going into Committee on a Bill, a guillotine Resolution of that kind; but he believed that taking into consideration the matters dealt with by the measure it was a fair allocation of time. After all, there was not very much to complain of in the length of time to be given. It was surely better to proceed thus, than that they should discuss day after day the first clause of the Bill, and then find at the end of six or seven days that the Government had got only six or seven words of it. The result of that was that they did not get to the really important parts of the measure which everybody in the House desired to see discussed. He hoped it would be entrusted to the Procedure Committee to see whether anything could be done to devise something in the nature of a Business Committee such as had been suggested, which would give the House full and fair opportunity for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had said that only Members of the House cared for the House of Commons, and that the country did not care for the House of Commons at all. That might be an epigrammatic statement containing some truth, but he thought it was true only in so far as the country had come to

  1413
  the conclusion that they were wasting time by constant and miscellaneous discussion. After all, it must come back to this—the conscience of every Member of the House to do what was right by Parliament in making not too long, or too frequent, but only what were necessary and fair contributions to debates, in order to get at the bottom of measures under consideration. As to the Amendment, he was not a little surprised to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was going to vote for it. It merely said that they must not have the guillotine Resolution on any Bill during the existence of the present Government unless they first of all agreed upon and brought into effect a proposal for dealing with the general business of the House. He believed a fair measure of time had been allowed for discussion of the Bill, and in the confident belief that the Government had taken the right course in proposing this guillotine Resolution, he would vote for it and against the Amendment.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid that as he would have no opportunity of moving the Amendment which he had on the Paper, he desired to say a word on the Amendment now before the House. He made no apology for intruding in a debate of this kind, because he felt that the Resolution went further than the Bill to which it applied and was no mere question of procedure In his view it invited them to take part in the formal; inauguration of bureaucratic Government, and even the youngest and least experienced Member of the House was justified in making a vigorous protest against the proposal of the Government. The Prime Minister had claimed that sufficient time had been given for the discussion of the Territorial Army Bill. He did not agree with him. But even if the time were sufficient, he still thought that they ought vigorously to oppose the Resolution, because the principle was the same whether the time allowed was sufficient or not. If in future discussion on all Bills was to be restricted, the Government of the day ought not to be the sole arbiter as to the extent of that restriction, because they necessarily looked at the question of the allocation of the time of the House from the point of view of their load of legislation, rather than from the point of view of the particular
  1414
  merits of the Bill. If, therefore, restriction of debate was to become an established thing, he hoped some such scheme as had been suggested might be discovered and adopted. Surely it was desirable that someone as independent as possible should decide the allocation of time on the merits of each Bill when it came before the House, and that not merely the amount of time should be given which the Government thought they could afford. The Prime Minister said they could spare nine days. On the other hand a Business Committee would look at the matter from exactly the other point of view, and would say what time should be devoted to this or to that clause of a Bill according to its importance. At all events, they would produce a much more equitable system than was contained in the Resolution of the Government, who kept the sole decision in their own hands. The Prime Minister had said that he was in favour of such a Committee, but that it was impossible to set up one this session. Why was it impossible? He did not see why it should be. The Prime Minister smiled. He felt that it might be somewhat impertinent of him to challenge the opinion of one of the Prime Minister's great experience, but he certainly thought that it might be possible for the House, without any long or serious debate, to set up an independent Business Committee. The Secretary of State for War had said that six days for Committee was sufficient, because the House had already approved of the general principle of the Bill on the First and Second Readings. This Bill dealt, inter alia, with the whole of the Auxiliary Forces, and practically placed them under a new organisation. The House knew how very varied were the conditions which prevailed throughout those forces. It must inevitably often happen that some of the particular points affecting certain regiments might seem unimportant to hon. Gentlemen in touch with some other part of the country. It might also happen that only a few hon. Members would be qualified to give a reliable opinion upon the points arising in a Bill of this character. It was of great importance, in order to get an efficient scheme, that those experts should be heard, in order that the result of their experience should be embodied in the Bill. The Territorial Army Bill was likely to be deficient and a failure as

  1415
  regarded individual regiments if those who hold strong opinions on the subject were not afforded an opportunity of expressing their views. John Stuart Mill, in his work on "Liberty," said—
  "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no mote justified in silencing that one person than that one person would be justified, if he had the power, in silencing mankind."
  He did not think one day was sufficient for the discussion of the financial Resolution. Important provisions like those, contained in Clause 13 ought not to be left as one of the six or eight clauses to be discussed in a single day. He urged the right hon Gentleman to endeavour to find some system which would make the debates on this subject interesting and do away with the wholesale use of the guillotine. If the Government could not meet them in this way he hoped that some system would be adopted under which the guillotine might be applied in such a way that the Opposition would not feel that they were being robbed of opportunities of free discussion at the whim of the Government.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid they had been told that the Resolution would destroy the efficiency y of the House of Commons, which was being turned into a mere machine to register the decrees of the Government. The noble Lord opposite had said that if they took 400 members from the street and brought them into the House they would be able to carry this Resolution just as well as it was being done by hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side. He wished to point out that there were many
  hon. Members who did not follow the Government just as they were told, and he had always voted according to what he thought was right. He wished to appeal to the House to consider this question from a business standpoint. He was sure hon. Members had been simply astounded at the deliberate waste of time that took place in the House of Commons. This measure had been considered in the House for eleven and a half days, and he would like to ask was there any Committee of business men outside the House which would have taken that length of time to deal with the subject. There were certain men in the House of Commons who talked upon every conceivable subject which came before them, whether they had any knowledge or not, with the result that the House was bored to death and did not want to listen to them. He might take the last speech they had heard as an example, because with the exception of the noble Lord opposite there was not a single member of the Opposition listening to him. If every Member of the House of Commons was to be allowed to speak on every subject, it would be impossible for the Government to get legislation through. What the country had returned hon. Members to the House of Commons for was not so much to discuss, as to pass legislation. If the Prime Minister went out of his way to give any more time he would disappoint his supporters who were of opinion that sufficient time had been allotted already for a thorough discussion of the matter.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 324; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 157.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.B

  Barlow John Emmott(Som'rs't

  Boland, John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brace, William

  Agnew, George William

  Barry, E. (Cork. R.)

  Branch, James

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barry,RedmondJ.(Tyrone,N.)

  Bright, J. A.

  Alden. Percy

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brooke, Stopford

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bell, Richard

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

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Benn, W.(T' w'rHamlets.S. Geo.

  Brunner,RtHnSirJ.T(Cheshire

  Asquith.Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bethell,T.R.(Essex,Maldon)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Billson, Alfred

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Baker.Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Birrell,Rt. Hon.Augustine

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Buxton, Rt.Hn.SidneyCharles

  Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Blake, Edward

  Byles, William Pollard

  Cairns, Thomas

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cameron, Robert

  Harwood, George

  Menzies, Walter

  Campbell- Bannerman,SirH.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Carr-Gomm. H. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Causton, RtHn.RichardKnight

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mond, A.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hazelton Richard

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R,

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Clarke, C.Goddard(Peckham)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Herbert,ColonelIvor(Mon.,S.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Clough, William

  Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)

  Nicholson, CharleslN.(Donc'st'r

  Clynes, J. R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Coats,SirT.Glen(Renfrew,W.)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hedge, John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hogan. Michael

  Nuttall, Harry

  Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ey Mid

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Dowd, John

  Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Grady, J.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscom'on,N.

  Delany, William

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Shee, James John

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

  Jenkins, J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dillon, John

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Partington, Oswald

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Duckworth, James

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pearce, Robert(Staffs. Leek)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Duncan,C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Dunn,A.Edward(Camborne)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Philipps,Col.Ivor(S'thampton)

  Dunne.MajorE. Martin(Walsall)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke

  Elibank, Master of

  King, AlfredJohn(Knutsford)

  Philipps.OwenC.(Pembroke)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Erskine, David C.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pollard, Dr.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lamb,EdmundG(Leominster

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Lamb, Ernest H.(Rochester)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lambert, George

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

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lamont, Norman

  Radford, G. H.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Law,Hugh A.(Donegal,W.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, JohnE.(Waterford)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lloyd-George,Rt. Hon. David

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Field, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Rees, J. D.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lundon, W.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lupton, Arnold

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lynch, H. B.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macdonald, J. R.(Leicester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macdonald, J. M(FalkirkB'ghs

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs).

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Robertson,RtHnE.(Dundee)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson,SirGScott(Bradf'rd

  Glover. Thomas

  MacNeill,JohnGordon Swift

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Goddard. Daniel Ford

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Gooch, George Peabody

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Crae, George

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rowlands, J.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Kean, John

  Runciman, Walter

  Grey, Rt. Hon.Sir Edward

  M'Killop, W.

  Russell, T. W.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

  Samuel,HerbertL.(Cleveland)

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Maddison, Frederick

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Scott,A.H.(AshtonunderLyne

  Haldane, Rt.Hon.Richard B.

  Manfield. Harry (Northants)

  Sears, J. E.

  Halpin, J.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Seddon, J.

  Harcourt, Rt.Hon. Lewis

  Marks,G.Croydon(Lanaceston

  Show, Rt. Hon. T. (HawickB.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Harrington, Timothy

  Meagher, Michael

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  1418

  1419

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Toulmin, George

  Whitley, JohnHenry (Halifax)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Ure, Alexander

  Whittaker,SirThomasPalmer

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Verney, F. W.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Smyth,ThomasF.(Leitrim,S.)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Wilkie. Alexander

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walker.H. DeR. (Leicester)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Williams, Osmond(Merioneth)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Ward,John(Stoke upon Trent

  Wilson, John Durham,Mid)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Waring, Walter

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

  Winfrey, R.

  Taylor,TheodoreC. Radcliffe)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wood.T. M'Kinnon

  Tennant,SirEdward(Salisb'ry

  Watt, Henry A.

  Young, Samuel

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen,E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  White, George (Norfolk

  Whitley and Mr. J. A.

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

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Pease.

  Tillett, Louis John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Tomkinson, James

  White,Patrick(Meath,North)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craig,CaptainJames(Down,E.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craik, Sir Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Aubrey- Fletcher.Rt. Hon.SirH.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Percy, Earl

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Duncan,Robert Lanark,Govan

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour, RtHn. A. J. (CityLond.)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Rawlinson,JohnFrederickPeel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.

  Fell, Arthur

  Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hn. MichaelHughHicks

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gordon, J.

  Sheffield.SirBerkeleyGeorgeD.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Haddock, George R.

  Smith,AbelH. (Hertford,East)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Starkey, John R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Thomoson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Houston. Robert Paterson

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

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

  Cave, George

  Keswick, William

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

  Cavendish, Rt.Hon.VictorC. W.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Younger, George

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Liddell, Henry

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone.E.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Chamberlain.RtHn.J.A.(Wore.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Cocbrane, Hon.Thos. H. A. E.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Viscount Valentia.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHmoved to leave out the words "including the financial Resolution relating thereto." He was somewhat encouraged to hope that the Government would accept this Amendment. He understood that the argument in favour of including the financial resolution in the closure proposal was based on two grounds. One was that this was an enabling Bill, and the other that a great number of the points had previously been dealt with to a very considerable extent on the Second Heading. He
  1420
  did not think it could be claimed that the scheme, either in regard to the amount it would cost, or in regard to a matter which, to his mind, was much more important, namely, its form and purpose, had received adequate discussion in previous debates. At Question time there had been a certain amount of elucidation given by the Secretary of State for War in answers to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the method of extracting information by Question

  1421
  and Answer as to the real proposals of the Bill was unsatisfactory, and ought not to be encouraged to any considerable extent. He and his friends were only anxious that there should be an opportunity for the financial proposals in connection with this measure being adequately discussed as a whole, and not in the partial or detached manner in which the debates had hitherto been conducted. The right hon. Gentleman had given them some reason to hope that he would accept this Amendment, for only that day he had stated in reply to a Question by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that on the Committee stage of the financial Resolution he would make a statement, and further that he would consider the possibility or desirability of laying a statement on the Table of the House. That, at any rate, was sufficient to show that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the House of Commons was not yet fully apprised of the intentions of the Government with reference to the financial operation of the measure. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to remove the financial Resolution from the operation of the guillotine. Personally he did not think that the discussion of the Resolution would take very long. He was very much in the dark at present, and while he did not wish hostilely to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, he wanted to know the exact nature of the proposals, how the accounts would come before the House of Commons, how they would be dealt with in the Committee stage, and how they would come before the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. It was upon these questions that short explanations from the right hon. Gentleman would clear away many doubts and uncertainties which existed in their minds at present. It must be evident that if they followed the course laid down in this Resolution, to all intents and purposes it would be practically certain that on the Committee stage of the financial Resolution there would be no discussion, for it was to be taken at the conclusion of the first day. He did not know whether the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had been informed on the matter, but he did not think the House of Commons had been informed
  1422
  that it was the intention of the Government to take the Report stage at the beginning of the second day. It must be obvious to the House that the Report stage on such a Resolution afforded by no means an adequate opportunity for discussing it. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench when in opposition attached very considerable importance to the constitutional point of view, and maintained that the rights of the House of Commons should be safeguarded by having due time for the discussion of such Resolutions. It was the almost universal feeling that this safe guard should not be dispensed with unless there was grave and sufficient reason for so doing. The practical effect of the guillotine Resolution would be to exclude this constitutional check on the expenditure of the country which had been one of the privileges of the House Commons. He might be told that questions which could be raised on the Resolution could also be raised on the clause of the Bill. There were a good many alterations which he felt inclined to suggest to the Government by way of Amendments to that clause. He had hitherto refrained from putting an Amendment on the Paper because he did not know exactly what the Government proposed to do finally; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to clear up this point, as there was a very general desire in the House that more definite information should be given. The Resolution, although technically not a part of the Bill, was yet a distinct stage in its passage through the House. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 2, to leave out the words 'including the financial Resolution relating thereto.'"—(Mr. Cavendish.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked whether the financial Resolution, being a distinct proceeding, ought not to have a particular time allotted to it. Sub-section (a) said that Clauses 1 and 2, and the Committee stage of the financial Resolution were to be brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day. It was obvious if that

  1423
  reading was correct that the financial Resolution might not be discussed at all.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not think that the fears of the hon. Members were well founded, since the Report stage of the financial Resolution must be taken first on the second allotted day. There was. moreover, nothing to prevent the House saying that discussion of any Bill should not be taken at all.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that Mr. Speaker had anticipated his reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The difficulty on which the right hon. Gentleman had dwelt was purely imaginary. The procedure was that Clauses 1 and 2, and the Committee stage of the financial Resolution should be discussed and concluded on the first allotted day. The Committee stage of the Resolution was a pure matter of form, because the whole thing could be discussed over again on the Report stage. Then Section 1 of Clause 3, in the Bill itself, must be discussed on Committee stage and also on the Report stage, which would serve as good a purpose for discussion by hon. Members opposite. Then there were subsequent sections of Clause 3, on which there would be an opportunity for full discussion on the financial proposals. That was the answer as regarded procedure. In respect to substance he had undertaken to make a statement in Committee, or to lay a Paper before the House—possibly he would do both—explaining the mode of working the finance of the Bill. He repeated what the Prime Minister had said, that it was the intention of the Government to apply to that part of the money spent through general officers commanding the Territorial Forces the strict rules of Army finance. When they came to the money raised and spent locally from the sums in the hands of the Volunteers the application of the Army Finance Act would not be so strictly enforced.
  CAPTIN CRAIGsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the financial Resolution could be discussed fully on the Report stage, but he had forgotten that all the time that discussion was taking place the other parts of the Bill on which many hon. Members desired to have a full discussion would be blocked. On
  1424
  questions involving expenditure of large sums surely it was important that the powers of control which the House had looked upon with much jealousy in the past should not be handed over to parties outside the House without full discussion. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had not fully realised how strongly feeling I would run outside the House on this question of the disposal of the money. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if the Opposition would picture themselves; as business men sitting down to work out the details of a Bill, the whole thing could be got through in a few days. He did not pretend to be a clever business man, but he thought that the Committee of business men would not at the end of six or seven days feel that they had done justice to it. The hon. Member for Barnstaple had admitted that the Secretary for War might have trusted the Opposition with the possession of a little common sense which would have led them to come to an arrangement for full and fair discussion. If the right hon. Gentleman was desirous that the Bill should go through in an impartial spirit, and be made a Bill good for the Army and good for national defence, he could not secure his object in a better way than by accepting the spirit of the Amendment just moved.
  And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, arid there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  MR MORTONon behalf of the Corporation of the City moved that the Bill be considered that day six months. He said that in 1902 the company obtained powers to extend their line from Finsbury Place to Lothbury. The Corporation opposed the Bill because the company proposed to build a station

  1425
  in the public way, in the improvement of which the Corporation had spent about £40,000. They hold that the company should purchase land for their station. The power under the Act of 1902 to take land expired eighteen months ago, and the rest of the Act would expire in two or three months. He contended that the company ought to come to the House with a new Bill instead of asking for a renewal of the old Act. In 1902 a great point was made in Committee that the company were going to extend their line 400 yards into the City, but did not propose to charge any extra fare for that distance. [An HON. MEMBER: That statement was made in Committee and denied and disproved].It appeared from the evidence that statement was made. Sir Charles Scotter stated that "his own idea was that the company would make it a two penny tube for any distance "and they were not adding this piece of line in order to get an increased fare. The engineer, Sir Douglas Fox, also, asked whether "it would not be possible to charge extra fares on account of the railway going 400 yards further into the City," said he "should think not, but that did not mean that the line would not be a revenue producer." Again, asked whether they would charge any additional fares for this little bit of additional extension, the witness replied, "No, I should think not." It was therefore understood by the Corporation and the Committee that the company were not to charge any additional fares; but now they came and said that they proposed to increase the fare by one halfpenny for this 400 yards, or an increase of 25 per cent. The opinion of the City Corporation was that this company could not possibly complete these works, as they would want further capital to do so, and were not likely to get it, and because, as everybody knew, these tube railways were not paying very well. This line was what was called a contractor's line, the contractors building it and taking all the risk up to a certain time. The problem which the City had to deal with in managing the immense traffic was a very difficult one, and they always had to see that certain restrictions were placed on companies. They did not, however, oppose companies unnecessarily. In fact, they had been accused of too lightly allowing railway companies to come into the City.
  1426
  Railway lines in the City could not be worked without restriction. The main point, however, that he wanted to make on this occasion was that the company ought not to take this piece of roadway for which the City had paid about £40,000 to improve it for the benefit of the public. They certainly should not be allowed to take it without paying for it, but the Corporation did not want them to take it even if they did pay, because the Corporation did not want it taken away from the public. When the Bill was before the House a short time ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade urged that it ought to be considered upstairs, and the promoters endeavoured to make use of that speech. They had no right to do that, because the Board of Trade had their own way of communicating with Committees. The City objected to speculative companies promoting Bills for taking over property upon which the Corporation had spent large sums of money for public purposes. They insisted that such concessions should be properly discussed. The company had had these concessions in their pockets since 1902 to make use of on the Stock Exchange, and they wanted to get them into their pockets again; but Parliament had hold over and over again that such concessions ought not to be granted to companies unless they intended to carry them out. They wanted to get the Board of Trade clause as to commencing the works within a given time into the Bill, but did not succeed, and, up to the present, though he did not know what would happen elsewhere, they had obtained nothing, and were to lose ground for which they paid about £40,000.
  MR. WEIRin seconding the Amendment, said he was not at all surprised at the objection raised to this Bill by his hon. friend who had for many years devoted himself to obtaining the best possible facilities for the travelling public. He objected to this everlasting asking for extension of time and concessions to railway companies in the interest very often of Stock Exchange speculators. They came to the House to get a Bill passed with no intention of carrying out the concessions obtained. The matter thon stood over for five or ten years until the company could raise sufficient money from the public to carry

  1427
  out the project, at a cost, in this particular case, of an additional 25 per cent. on the fares as arranged in the original Bill—and that in the face of the evidence of Sir Charles Scotter and Sir Douglas Fox, the celebrated engineer, who distinctly stated that there would be no additional fare charged for this extra distance of 400 yards. It was a bad system to allow Bills to stand over for a number of years, and then to allow the companies to come forward and ask for extra benefits for themselves whilst giving loss advantages to the public. He had not the slightest hesitation in supporting his friend. This was a system which must, in the interest of the public, be stopped, and the sooner it was stopped the better. It was a system that ought not to be encouraged, and if the Motion went to a division he should vote with his hon. friend. He hoped the Secretary to the Board of Trade would see that the public interest was protected.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'this day six month.' "—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. KEARLEV,)said that if they considered what had taken place within the last three months the House would agree with him that the hon. Member who moved the Motion might have apologised for taking up the time of the House in this way. On the 7th March, the hon. Gentleman, as the official spokesman of the Corporation of London, made a speech setting forth all his objections to the Second Reading of the Bill. Those were the precise objections he put forward before the Committee which considered the Bill in 1902 when these powers were originally granted. On that occasion the hon. Gentleman said the railway was of no use; that it would never be made, and would never be used if it was made. He on that occasion answered all the points of the hon. Gentleman and did I not propose to go into them now. They were fully discussed by the House, which came to the conclusion that there was no ground for rejecting the Bill. The
  1428
  Bill then went upstairs and the hon. Gentleman, again as the official spokesman of the Corporation of London, submitted his evidence, and the Committee came to the same conclusions as were arrived at in 1902, namely, that the Corporation of London had not made out a case for the rejection of the Bill. Now, after the Committee had heard his evidence, the hon. Gentleman again came to the House and moved the rejection of the Bill and told the House that if he was not successful he would try again elsewhere. In a case like this, he thought a great corporation like that of the City of London, in doing what they had, were not treating the House with proper respect. He was afraid they had fallen into the hands of bad advisers. The junior Member for the City of London, the other day, when speaking on the Worthing Gas Bill, gave the House some good advice. The hon. Gentleman said that when a case had been heard and witnesses examined and cross-examined by counsel, he took the very strongest objection to the Bill being opposed in the House. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire, with a pertinacity worthy of a better cause, asked the House to reject the Bill. For his part, and he said so plainly, he thought that was an abuse of the procedure of the House, and he hoped the House would show its sense of the action of the hon. Gentleman by rejecting the Motion.
  MR. D. A. THOMAShoped his hon. friend would take the same course as he took on the occasion of the Second Reading. The Committee, of which he was a Member, which considered this Bill carefully, considered it for two days, and the only opposition to it was that of the hon. Member. They gave every attention to his evidence, recognising not only his position in the House, but also that he represented the Corporation of the City of London, and had also paid special attention to London traffic. After giving weight to his evidence, the Committee, unanimously and without hesitation, passed the preamble of the Bill. They were fortified in their action by the fact that the Board of Trade approved the Bill and that it was merely an extension of the Bill of 1902. They recognised that the Bill represented a bona fide intention on the part of responsible men to

  1429
  make this railway as soon as they could find the money, and beyond that they also felt that nobody would be prejudiced by a delay of three years. Under all these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, or, if it went to a division, the House would vote against it and support the Committee.
  MR. REESsaid that if it was competent for the Member for Ross-shire to support the Member for Sutherland, it was competent for anyone who laboured for his daily bread in the City of London to give his views upon this Bill. He submitted that this was a case in which a few words might be said with advantage upon the raid of the Picts and Scots upon the Bill before the House. The opposition to the scheme had been a vain opposition, and had failed both on the Second Reading and in the Committee upstairs. He wished to take exception to what had been said with regard to those engaged in the promotion of the Bill. If anybody had the curiosity to look up the names of the directors of the company, they would be found to be men at the least not less respected in the City of London than the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire himself. As one who knew the City well, he desired to say that this extension of 400 yards would be extremely useful, and people who were in haste would gladly pay the halfpenny it was proposed to charge. These attacks, which occurred with surprising regularity whenever any railway Bill came before the House, were extremely detrimental, not only to the companies concerned, but also to the commerce and trade of the country. So amazed was he when the hon. Member made his first opposition to this Bill, that he asked an old Parliamentary hand what was the cause of it, and the old Parliamentary hand said it was probably due to the absence of third-class sleepers on the railway. He pointed out that the line was only 300 or 400 yards long, but his friend said "Oh ! that would not stand in the way of the said Member," and then asked what the name of the company was He said the Great Northern and City, whereupon his friend replied, "Why did you not tell me that before. There is a Member of this House
  1430
  who opposes every railway Bill that has the word 'Northern' in it. "He did not wish to take up the time of the House, but he observed that whenever railway Bills came before them they were always treated as if railway proprietors were rich people with interests altogether different from those of the taxpayer or of poorer people. The fact was that in most of the big railway companies 60 per cent. of the holders of stock held sums under £500, which could scarcely be regarded as a venial accumulation of capital. As regarded the perpetual reiteration of the alleged "monopoly" granted, the whole of the country was now mapped out like a gridiron; they could not drive in any direction without crossing a railway line, and underground, in London, there would soon be almost as much pressure and competition as above ground. What was the position? On the sum of £1,282,000,000 invested in railways the total return was 3·27 in 1905, during which time fifteen of the companies paid £21,000,000 in wages. He asked whether there was not really some point in that remark, because the figures showed whether or not it was wise to maintain or support this perpetual opposition to railway companies whose capital returned, on the whole, only 3½ per cent. Out of thirty-nine companies moreover which he had looked up, the stock of only nine stood above par. The hon. Member below him had spoken with indignation of the charge of one halfpenny for going 400 yards, though many of them paid a penny for going as far in their lives.
  MR. MORTONsaid he did not speak with indignation; what he said was that they had promised not to make any further charge.
  MR. REESsaid the amount was not a very excessive charge for going 400 yards. Were railway stockholders mere altruists? They got little enough as it was for their money. He asked whether it was fair that the Great Eastern, which did the most local traffic in London, should run its trains from Walthamstow to Liverpool Street at a cost of 3·7 per mile, and should get 3·2? The District Railway Company's average receipts from workmen's tickets was 0·65, while it cost the company 1·22 to carry the workmen, and that was

  1431
  about 30 per cent. of their traffic. It reminded him of the time when he was in California, and when he took a ticket to go across America. He was told that if he had only come a little earlier he could have gone across for nothing and got a bunch of bananas at the end of the journey. But that was the result of competition and not of ignorant and wanton depreciation. He did not know why people who put capital in railway companies should not receive some return. He submitted that it was an altogether wanton opposition to this Bill. These Bills were brought forward at a great deal of cost, and the works for which they provided were frequently thrust upon the companies owing to competition, and it was by no means certain that in such a case as this and in many such cases that they were going to reap much profit. In France the other day the Minister of Finance described the prosperity of the country as such that almost every person in it had some interest in the railway companies. He feared that was not a criterion of prosperity here. He maintained that this was entirely germane to the present discussion, and instead of regarding the railway companies as enemies it was far better to treat them as friends, as helping communication, and as spending vast sums on wages. The hon. Member below him had described himself as a representative of the City in this matter, but he was informed that the hon. Member carried everything he wanted through the City Council by mere pertinacity. When he brought anything in he stuck to it, and, others going away because they had other work or were tired out, he carried through a wearied and attenuated council his resolution, and then came there and said he represented the City. He was in the City the greater part of every day himself, and he did not hesitate to express his doubt as to the hon. Member representing the City in any shape or form whatsoever. But whether the hon. Gentleman represented the City or not, he did say that this 400 yards of railway was very much needed, and that the factious and oft-repeated opposition to it deserved to be described in stronger terms than those used by the hon. Member on the Front Bench.
  MR. E. H. LAMBsaid he begged to take exception to the course
  1432
  adopted by the hon. Member for Sutherland. Without going into the merits or demerits of the Bill, he asked the hon. Gentlemen to withdraw his Motion, in the interests both of the Corporation and of the House. For his part he did not think that the hon. Member for Sutherland accurately represented the views of the City Corporation at this stage. Whatever was the action he might have desired to take in another place, he wished to say that the action of the hon. Member was most unfortunate, and, as another Member of the Corporation, he dissociated himself from him.
  MR. EDMUND LAMBsaid that, as a Member of the Committee, he had examined this Bill very carefully, and he had come to the conclusion that this extension was very much required and would be of benefit to the public. The railway carried 16,000,000 passengers every year. This distance of 400 yards would make a great difference to people going to business, and the position of the Corporation was very difficult to understand. There was no alternative proposal to this, which he thought would be in the interests of the public.
  MR. MORTONsaid he did not wish to detain the House, and he asked leave to withdraw the Motion, but not at all because of anything that had been said behind him. He wished that people who spoke about the Corporation would be correct and read the Minutes in which it was recorded that the Corporation authorised the opposition.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot make another speech.
  Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL. [BY ORDER.]
  Order for Second Reading road.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. MORTON,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said he had to oppose this railway Bill on the Second Reading because the Corporation had no locus standi before the Committee. The Bill proposed to confer powers upon the Central London Company in regard to their undertaking, and it was opposed by the Corporation, not because it did any work within the City, but because a necessary work which should have been included had been left out. As long ago as 1897 they were considering the question of subways in front of the Royal Exchange, and how they could be connected up with the railways. If they took the trouble to road the minutes of the Corporation they would find that in 1897, when this matter was being considered, they received notice that a station was about to be built at the corner of Lombard Street, also called the Bank Station on the City and South London Electric Railway. When the plans were submitted for that station they objected to them, and called upon the South London Company to connect up their station by a subway with the Central Railway Company's station, on the level of the booking office, and also a deep level subway. When the matter was being considered Sir Benjamin Baker wrote to them stating that the terms asked by the Central London Railway Company made the carrying of the Corporation's proposals practically prohibitory on account of the very large sum which they were asked by the Central London Company to carry it out. The Corporation eventually got the deep level subway connection which had been of great use to the public and the Companies; but not desiring to press the City and South London Railway too harshly they gave up for the moment their demand for the booking office level subway. In 1901 the Central Railway Company themselves came before the Corporation committee, and at that time they intended to present a Bill to Parliament to complete their circle as they called it. The Corporation thereupon told the railway company that they would not consider their Bill until they had settled the question of communication between their own line and the City and South London Railway and King William Street. Thereupon the
  1434
  company agreed to construct the subway, making only one condition, that the City and South London Railway should agree to it. They went so far as to submit a plan of this subway and the Corporation approved the plans and considered the matter settled. The position of the matter now was that although five years had gone by, nothing had been done to construct the subway. Those who knew anything about city traffic knew how necessary it was that everything should be done to make use of these subway facilities. A letter was written by the Town Clerk to the City and South London Railway in regard to this subway, and they replied that they had no objection to it, and nothing was said about their paying any part of the expense. Ever since the year 1902 they had been unable to get the subway built, and the reason the Corporation were opposing the Bill now was that the construction of the subway ought to have been included in the Bill as promised. He knew they argued that the construction was subject to a concession that another subway should be taken over by the Corporation, but that had nothing to do with the matter. Instead of constructing the subways as promised, the company now repudiated the matter altogether. The City Corporation were acting in the interests of the public, and he made no excuse for bringing the matter forward. He regretted to say that corporations got little sympathy from Parliament with regard to matters which were not personal to the corporations, and he was sorry that the Board of Trade had seen fit to attack them as if they had some personal interest in this matter. The first duty of the Board of Trade ought to be to protect the public against all those companies. When these consessions and monopolies were granted to railway companies it was assumed that they were not granted for the benefit of shareholders, speculators, or adventurers, and he hoped the Corporation of the City of London would get some assistance from the Board of Trade in this matter. He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. SMEATON MR. SMEATON (Stirlingshire) formally seconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. KEARLEYsaid it was the duty of the Board of Trade to protect the interest of the public, and he denied that they favoured companies. He thought it was very wrong of the hon. Member to make any accusation of that kind. The Board of Trade had a duty to perform in connection with these matters, and they always acted impartially, leaving their mind open and affording opportunities to both parties to state their grievances. They had always endeavoured as much as they possibly could to deal fairly with both sides. In regard to this Bill he had had the advantage of seeing the chairman of the Central London Railway and their solicitor, who had informed him that when they made their railway in 1897 they arranged for the construction of certain subways. But the Corporation of the City imposed that obligation on them and they had carried it out. They had also made a footpath under the street to avoid heavy traffic under the Mansion House. Further than that they had laid a subway into which all the water pipes, post-office wires, and other pipes were gathered together. The Corporation was the authority for underground pipes, but in regard to this particular pipe subway the Central London Railway were mainly responsible. In November 1901 the company lodged notices of their intention to carry on the existing railway to such an extent as to convert it into a circular railway, and they opened friendly negotiations; with the Corporation of the City of London on the basis of getting the Corporation to take over the pipe subway in return for which they were willing to make the underground connection described as the King William Street subway. The basis of the negotiations was that a circular railway should be made, and if that was not done the negotiations were to come to nothing. They agreed to make a subway, and certain conditions were undertaken by the Corporation. The 1902 Bill for a circular railway was rejected by the House. At that time all the railway
  1436
  Bills affecting London were hung up in consequence of the appointment of the Commission on London traffic. He had read at considerable trouble the enormous amount of correspondence which had passed between the two parties, and he was bound to say that he saw nothing in it which would substantiate the case which his hon. friend sought to make. There was an undertaking to make a subway, with conditions. He knew nothing of the rights and wrongs of the case; he formed the opinion he had stated from the correspondence and from a paragraph in a letter written by one of the partners of the solicitors of the company, in which he said—
  "I have no hesitation in saying that there is not, and never was, an unconditional agreement on the part of the Central London Railway to construct a subway."
  That was the impression which he got himself from the correspondence. Seeing that this Bill sought to extend the f Shepherd's Bush end of the line by a few chains, he thought his hon. friend would be well advised if he withdrew his opposition at this moment.
  MR. MOOREsaid he believed he could speak on this matter with absolute impartiality. He congratulated the Parliamentary Secretary on the fair way in which he had put the matter. He thought the statement of the hon. Gentleman would convey absolute conviction, but for one circumstance, namely, that he appeared to have collected his entire information from one side only.
  MR. KEARLEY: May I correct the hon. and learned gentleman? The Board of Trade have gone into both sides of the case in detail, and I have looked into both sides.
  MR. MOOREsaid he was far from saying that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in the conclusion arrived at. He probably was right. From the statement, made by the hon. Gentleman it occurred to him that he had only received the account of one side of the case. He accepted the statement of the hon. Gentleman that he had been to both parties. If he had not interviewed the Corporation, as well as the Central London Railway, although he might be right in the conclusion he had

  1437
  arrived at, it would be a conclusion arrived at on an ex parte statement.
  MR. KEARLEY: I read the whole of the correspondence between the parties. I did not go further.
  MR. MOORE:said the hon. Gentleman had interviewed the solicitors of the Central London Railway, and as he understood he had had no communication with the representatives of the Corporation.
  MR. MORTON: None whatever; he has not consulted us in any way.
  MR. MOOREsaid that was the only point which he thought defective in the fair statement which the Parliamentary Secretary had placed before the House. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire had asked the House not to allow advantages to be given by the railway company in one part of London because of a breach of agreement alleged to have been committed in another part. He understood that was the entire case put by the hon. Member.
  MR. MORTON: That was the only way I could put it.
  MR. MOOREsaid he was glad he had not misunderstood the hon. Member's remarks. Surely all this matter depended on a question of fact. The strength of the hon. Member's position depended on two things, first, that there was an agreement between the two parties, and, secondly, that the agreement was not carried out. The ascertainment of facts was a matter which this House left to be dealt with by Committees upstairs on the evidence brought before them. The question whether there was or was not an agreement was one which the House could not decide. If there was an agreement which the railway company had not carried out, the corporation could during the past six years have brought an action to enforce it before the Railway Commission or in the Chancery Division. The hon. Member had said that the Corporation represented the public. If this agreement was in the interest of the public, the Corporation had grossly neglected its duty to the public for six years in not taking steps to enforce it.
  MR. MORTON: May I tell my hon. friend that the Corporation had no sealed agreement. It is all contained in letters, and they had hoped they might trust to the honour of the company.
  MR. MOOREsaid he did not think that a technical objection, that the agreement was not sealed, would weigh for much with the Chancery Division or the Railway Commission if equity was against the company. The Corporation had not attempted for six years to enforce the agreement. He thought, therefore, it would be contrary to the dignity of the House and ordinary fair usage between company and company, and man and man, if the House were to agree to the Motion which the hon. Member had made to penalise the company in respect of a dispute of such very ancient origin. He was quite prepared to agree to the Bill going upstairs in the ordinary way for examination by an independent Committee.
  MR MORTONasked whether he might be allowed to correct a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, which was entirely incorrect?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot be allowed to make a second speech unless it is merely a personal explanation.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)).
  Postponed Proceeding on Amendment to Question, "That the Committee stage and Report stage of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill, including the Financial Resolution relating thereto, shall be proceeded within the following manner:—(a) That Clauses 1 and 2 and the committee stage of the Financial Resolution be proceeded with and proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; (b) That the Report stage of the Financial Resolution and Clauses 3 and 4 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to

  1439
  a conclusion on the second allotted day; (c)That Clauses 5 to 7 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the third allotted day; (d)That Clauses 8 to 12 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the fourth allotted day; (e)That Clauses 13 to 27 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the fifth allotted day; (f)That the remaining clauses of the Bill and the schedules, and any new Government clauses and any new Government schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the sixth allotted day, and that the Chairman report the Bill to the House without Question put; (g) That two allotted days be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and that new clauses and Clauses 1 to 15 of the Bill be proceeded with on the first of those allotted days and the proceedings thereon brought to a con conclusion on that day, and that the remaining clauses of the Bill and the schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion, be proceeded with on the second of those allotted days and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day.
  After this Order comes into operation, any day (other than a Friday) shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any stage of the Financial Resolution relating thereto is put down as the first Order of the Day, followed by the Bill.
  At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are to be brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall, if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has. been given, but no other Amendments, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses or schedules,
  1440
  he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill, as the ease may be.
  At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order of the Day, or if that day is a Friday at 5 p.m., the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
  Proceedings to which this Order relates shall not, on any allotted day on which proceedings or any business are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  After the passing of this Order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill (including the Financial Resolution relating thereto) stand as first Order of the day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion for adjournment under Standing Order 10, nor Motion to postpone a clause, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate."—(Sir H Campbell-Banner-man.)—
  Which Amendment was—
  "In line 2, to leave out the words including the Financial Resolution relating thereto.' "—(Mr. Cavendish.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that in November. 1902, speaking on the question of the closure being applied to any financial measure, the present Prime Minister maintained that that procedure lessened the rights and privileges of the House of Commons and extended those of the Executive Government. If that was the view of the Prime Minister in 1902, they might be safe in saying that if the right hon. Gentleman had his own way the financial parts of this Bill would remain open for free discussion without having the guillotine applied to them. They recognised fully that in matters of this kind the Treasury would have the last word to say in regard to the distribution of the money from the Central

  1441
  Fund which was to be allocated to the different Auxiliary Forces. What had to be decided in the future was most complicated, and ample time should therefore be given for discussion. If the Secretary for War would only persuade the Prime Minister to drop the Irish Council Bill, which Ireland did not desire, there would then be more time to discuss fully this important question, which affected the whole of the United Kingdom, its Territorial Forces, and the defence of its shores.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that discussion on the Financial Resolution, which entirely jeopardised the existence of the Auxiliary Forces, should not be curtailed. The debate ought to last two or three days. The criticism of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh and of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland had not been answered. It was perfectly scandalous that, when the expenditure of the taxpayers' money was in question, a time limit should be put to the debate. There was no precedent for it. He desired to protest in the strongest way possible against the way in which the Government were forcing the measure through the House by the curtailment of the privileges of Members.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that the Secretary of State for War had told them that he was going to make another statement on the subject of the finance of the Bill, but the very frequency with which these statements followed one another was evidence of the confusion into which the Government had fallen. A Statement was of cardinal importance, and ought to be before the House and to have full discussion, which it certainly would not have under the proposed Resolution. He maintained that the scheme of the finance of the Bill had given, from the very start to now, an entirely wrong impression as to its cost. If such a statement had been put forward by a limited liability company, it would have been called a fraudulent prospectus. The right hon. Gentleman having given to the House and his Party the assurance that this new Parliament should scrutinise the finances of the country with the greatest care, he had not acted in accordance with his public pledges
  1442
  or private inclinations. The approximate Estimate was £2,750,000, but the Secretary of State for War apparently would not be held to that Estimate, but had come forward from time to time with certain proposals which would increase it. Therefore the Estimate which was laid before them was a delusion and entirely inadequate At the last moment, however, the right hon. Gentleman had promised them a new scheme, and he only hoped that it would be explained more clearly than some of his other proposals had been. They did not want any vague approximation, hut a precise statement of fact, which he thought the House of Commons was entitled to ask for. Therefore, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to let them have an opportunity of examining the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that half the points of interest could not be discussed on the Bill, but he did not think that it was his province to inform the House of Commons of that fact: it should have come from the Chairman of Committees. The right hon. Gentleman had said they could not discuss the question of adjutants, but if they could not discuss it on the Bill they could do so on the Estimates He thought the right hon. Gentleman's proposal on this subject was one of the gravest errors into which he was going to fall, and therefore he contended that they should have a full opportunity of discussing it. It appeared to him that in regard to the financial portion of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman was going to destroy, not only the control of the House of Commons but the control of the Treasury over hundreds of thousands of pounds—indeed, a sum which would amount at least to two, three, or four millions. That was a subject with perhaps the least Party aspect of anything connected with the Bill, but it was certainly one of the most important, and he was convinced that there were Members in every quarter of the House and of every shade of opinion who would deeply regret any action of the Government which prevented duo discussion upon such a proposal for financial devolution. He thought it was a matter of immense gravity, especially as it was now admitted that the Financial Estimate was perfectly inadequate to the situation, and would not meet the whole of the liability in regard to the proposed Territorial Force. He therefore thought that they had a

  1443
  strong case for asking the Government to revise their decision, and he confessed that to his mind the speech of the Secretary of State was by no means convincing that the Government had done the right thing in this matter.
  SIR F. BANBUEYhoped his hon. friend would not mind if he ventured to differ from him on one point. He had commenced his speech by saying, and he agreed with the noble Lord, that they had had sufficient memoranda from the Secretary of State for War. The noble Lord said that they had had fourteen of these memmoranda, but he should like fifteen, with time to discuss the last one. Therefore, he proposed to vote for the Amendment. As he understood the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, he proposed to take Clauses 1 and 2 and the Committee stage of the financial Resolution on the first allotted day, and speaking entirely as a taxpayer, and quite apart from the safety and the military needs of the Empire, he disapproved of the financial Resolution being dragged in at the tail end of an important discussion on Clauses 1 and 2.The financial Resolution certainly interested the taxpayer. He himself was not averse to paying what he considered to be a fair sum to maintain the Army, but he wanted to know before he was taxed that there was some chance of the money being properly spent. He understood that great military authorities like his hon. friend the Member for Sheffield and others, would take up the whole of the time of the first day in discussing military questions, and the result would be the taxpayer would have nothing to say in regard to the financial proposals. He had the greatest admiration for the right hon. Gentleman's savoir faire, but he thought the most difficult part of this Bill was the financial part, and that the Secretary of State had carefully arranged his proposals for closure by compartments so that the question which would meet with the greatest opposition from the -greatest number of Members would not be discussed at all. That might be all very well from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, but it was not all very well, but very ill, from the point of view of the taxpayer. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give them a
  1444
  separate day on which to discuss the financial Resolution. He thought it was a revolution in procedure to mix up the Committee Stage of the Bill with the Committee Stage of the financial Resolution. Hitherto there had not been any disposition or tendency towards obstruction on this Bill, and there was no necessity to make a new precedent. If there was any obstruction in Committee of Ways and Means in regard to the financial Resolution, it was always open to the right hon. Gentleman, who was a man of courage, to move the closure, which he had no doubt would under such circumstances be granted. When the right hon. Gentleman was going to revolutionise the whole scheme for the defence of the country, he ought to give the House an opportunity of dealing with the financial proposals, and himself an opportunity of showing that they would be successful.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had hung back from taking part in the discussion because he had hoped that they were going to have some further utterance from the Treasury Bench. He thought the Amendment of his hon. friend was worthy of more consideration by the Government than they had yet given it, because it proceeded upon "their own principle, and was in harmony with their own declarations. What was it that his right hon. friend proposed? It was that, leaving intact all the rest of the closure procedure, the financial Resolution should be excluded from the Resolution. It was not part of the Prime Minister's original idea to send the financial clauses upstairs, and the fact that he foreshadowed as a part of the original proposal of sending the other parts upstairs, might be a reason for limiting the time on the discussion of those parts, but was no argument for limiting the discussion on the financial clauses. The right hon. Gentleman was on stronger ground when they considered, not only this Resolution, but his Amendment of the Rules of Procedure. In the latter case he drew a distinction between financial and other business, and insisted that the House ought to retain the full control that hitherto had existed over all financial business. But the financial Resolutions in this case were the very Resolutions on which he proposed to curtail the rights of

  1445
  discussion. Having succeeded a week or two ago in carrying through the House an abrogation of the rights of the House to discuss clauses in Committee, the Government now came down and attempted to abrogate the rights of the House to discuss the financial clauses of the first Bill introduced under the new procedure. Let the House remember that finance was the crux of this question. The greatest difficulty that all had to contend with was the financial difficulty, and if that were eliminated anybody who occupied the position of the right hon. Gentleman could provide an Army. Finance was the crux of the question, and yet they were to be limited in their discussion on the financial clauses. The finance of this Bill was serious. The right hon. Gentleman had issued many Papers to the House and had promised more. It was to be hoped those Papers would be more illuminating, and would afford a more solid basis for their proceedings. Hitherto, they had had only one estimate of the force of the right hon. Gentleman's measure, and that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, had torn to shreds and tatters, showing the House that the estimate upon which they were proceeding and which they thought was a true estimate was false, that they were living in a fool's paradise, and at an early date would be undeceived. It was not only that the estimate presented was untrustworthy, as the right hon. Gentleman would himself admit, but it did not represent what was in his mind at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman had already pledged himself to fresh expenditure, but in addition the right hon. Member for Derbyshire had raised a serious question about the control the House exercised through the Public Accounts Committee and Comptroller and Auditor-General over the money to be expended. The right hon. Gentleman might be prepared to suggest means which would meet the criticisms of his right hon. friend, but no one could deny the gravity and importance of the issue raised. But was the House to have no full opportunity of considering the new proposals? This Bill was a veritable chameleon and changed its colour every time it came before the House. If they looked at the intrinsic importance of the question, or to the general principles which the Government had laid down for the conduct of their
  1446
  financial business, or, again, if they looked to the justification urged by the Prime Minister for introducing the proposed form of closure by compartments at that stage of the Bill, everything pointed to the desirability—nay, to the necessity—of excepting the Financial Resolution, and no argument that had been used in support of the closure in general was germane to this particular proposal. He should certainly support his right hon. friend if he went to a division.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he was not entitled to speak again, but as there had been a general invitation to him to do so perhaps he might be allowed to reply to what had been said. He was sure that under the arrangement which had been made there was opportunity for complete discussion of the financial Resolution. The Committee stage of the Resolution would be taken on the first day, and the real debate upon it would come on Report, and also on the first sub-clause of Clause 3, which repeated the same thing over again, Therefore, on the second day they had both the Resolution and the clause, and ample opportunity for discussion. As the Prime Minister had said, they meant to apply the ordinary method of army finance to the business of the associations as regarded all sorts of money matters. They proposed under a system of careful inspection to require the certificate of the general officer commanding in camp for the expenditure which Parliament was asked to defray. In that way they should preserve the advantages and improve the system of Parliamentary control which existed to-day in the volunteer force. They were driven to something of that kind, otherwise the Territorial Army would be thrown into red-tapeism and correspondence about every item. He hoped that he had shown that they did not desire to curtail discussion on finance nor upon other matters. He had undertaken to lay a Paper on the Table of the House explaining those matters. The right hon. Gentleman had uttered a heresy which he confessed shocked him more than any other heresy in connection with this subject. The right hon. Gentleman had said, "If you want an efficient Army you must spend money." They had heard that doctrine again and again

  1447
  in the history of the British Army, and it had led to colossal failure. The great armies of the world, the army of Germany and the army of Japan, for instance, had been organised on a basis of frugality, and it was that frugality and the necessity for frugality which had given efficiency to the army administration of those two countries.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had never suggested that the mere spending of money would provide an efficient Army. He did not want to refer to the instances of Germany and Japan, where they had compulsory service, which made a great difference. "What he had said was that there were many ways of providing an efficient Army if money were no object, but the special difficulty of our problem was to provide an efficient Army on the volunteer principle.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he confessed that it was an enormous difficulty; but he feared that the right hon. Gentleman had been affected by the damning heresy in military matters that a lavish expenditure would secure an efficient Army. It was just the other way. He had asked German generals their experience on the point and they had told him that by carefully considering the expenditure and thinking out the organisation they got a really efficient Army and secured plenty of money for the things which were necessary. In regard to the fifteen day's camp the estimate was £1 70,000; but if his conjecture was right, and they stayed the fifteen days, the sum would be £130,000. That was one item. The other was the provision for the walking-out dress. At the present moment he estimated that at something like £300,000 more. He had pointed out
  that the auxiliary forces at present cost £4,500,000, and that the Territorial Army, on a basis pretty lavishly calculated, worked out at £2,850,000. He believed the working out of the whole thing would leave him a margin on which he would be able to work. He did not think that he had in this House the character of being extravagant, and he believed the estimate he had placed before the House might be relied upon to this extent—that they would keep very close to the figures which had been given. In framing his Estimates he felt sure the House, notwithstanding its mood for economy, would force him up, and he had provided himself with a margin for such a contingency. The increased camp allowance and the walking-out dress which he had undertaken to give would absorb a considerable sum. But he believed the actual figures would work out very close to, if not actually at, the Estimate he had prepared.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman's most interesting speech was really conclusive in favour of the Amendment, for he had proved beyond question hew great was the importance of the financial clauses of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had got off his speech upon his proposals; but it would be out of order to reply, and they were not going to have full opportunity of reply hereafter. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for what he had just told them, for he could not have supplied them with a stronger argument for letting the House have its full liberty of debate when those clauses came on.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 158.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Billson, Alfred

  Agnew, George William

  Barnes. G. N.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ainsworth. John Stirling

  Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Alden, Percy

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone.N.

  Brace. William

  Allen.A.Acland(Christchurch)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Armitage, R.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brigg, John

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bell, Richard

  Bright, J. A.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Benn,W.(Tw'rHamlets,S.Geo.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.)

  Berridge, T. H. D

  Brunner.RtHnSirJ.T(Cheshire

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bertram, Julius

  Bryce. J. Annan

  Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Bethell.Sir J. H. (Essex.Rom'f rd

  Burns. Rt. Hon. John

  Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Henry, Charles S.

  Partington, Oswald

  Buxton, Rt Hn Sydney Charles

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Byles, William Pollard

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hodge, John

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

  Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hooper, A. G.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hope.W. Bateman(Somerset,N.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Price, Robt. John (Norfolk, E.)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Clough, William

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Radford, G. H.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Cobbold. Felix Thornley

  Jenkins, J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Jones,Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

  Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cowan, W. H.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Crooks, William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Crossley, William, J.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.

  Lambert, George

  Robinson, S.

  Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lamont, Norman

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lea.HughCecil (St.Pancras, E.)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Delany, William

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

  Rose, Charles Day

  Duckworth, James

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  Rowlands, J.

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Levy, Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Russell, T. W.

  Dunne,MajorE.Martin(Walsall

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lynch, H. B.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Erskine, David C.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Essex, R. W.

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

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Sears, J. E.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Seaverns., J. H.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Seddon, J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

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

  Ferens, T. R,

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Fiennes,Hon. Eustace

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Maddison, Frederick

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Glover, Thomas

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stewart-Smith D. (Kendal)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Summerbell, T.

  Grant, Corrie

  Menzies, Walter

  Taylor, Austin (East, Toxteth)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mond, A.

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Gulland, John W.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Thomas, David Alf red(Merthyr)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Tomkinson, James

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Napier, T. B.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Newness, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Toulmin, George

  Harwood, George

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Ure, Alexander

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Verney, F. W.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Vivian, Henry

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Donnell, C.J. (Walworth)

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Grady, J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)

  1450

  1451

  Ward, W. Dudley Southampton

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Wardle, George J.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Waring. Walter

  White, Lake (York, E.R.)

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

  Wason. Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wason, JohnCatheart(Orkney)

  Whitley. John Benry (Halifax)

  Winfrey, R.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wiles, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Pease.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  NOES.

  Anson. Sir William Reynell

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Morpeth, Visconut

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Dalrymple. Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Ashley. W. W.

  Doughty. Sir George

  Pease.HerbertPike(Darlington)

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn.Sir H.

  Douglas. Rt. Hon.A. Akers-

  Rawlinson. John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres. Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Roberts. S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

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

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

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Banbury. Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Banner. John S. Harmood-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

  Barrie H T (Londonderry, N.

  Forster. Henry William

  Salter. Arthur Clavell

  Beach.Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gordon. J.

  Sandys. Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

  Beckett. Hon. Gervase

  Haddock. George R.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton. Marquess of

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George

  Boyle. Sir Edward

  Hardy. Laurence(Kent.Ashford

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford. East)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

  Bridgeman. W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Stanley. Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hervey.F. W. F. Bury.S. Ed m'ds

  Starkey. John R.

  Burdett-Coutts. W.

  Hill,Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffs'h.)

  Butcher. Samuel Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Talbot. Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile. E. Hildred

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Thornton. Percy M.

  Castlereagh. Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cavendish. Rt.Hn.VictorC. W.

  Lambton. Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R,

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

  Cecil Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Wortley.Rt. Hn C B. Stuart-

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

  Lockwood.Rt.Hn.Col.-Lt.A.R.

  Wyndham Rt. Hon. George

  Channing. Sir Francis Allston

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Younger, George

  Cheetham. John Frederick

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

  Clark. GeorgeSmith(Belfast.N.

  Lonsdale. John Brownlee

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Viscount Valentia.

  Court hope, G. Loyd

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Craig; Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Moore, William

  MR. WYNDHAMmoved an Amendment which he said he would explain without reading. Assuming that the Government allocated two days to clauses from 1 to 4, inclusive of the financial Resolution, he asked that they should allow for the rest of the Bill one more day, that was five days altogether, and that during those five days they should give the House something approaching more nearly to freedom of discussion. Was it unreasonable to ask for one more day? The reply might be made that the principal points were in the first clauses of the Bill, and that the remaining clauses were not nearly of like importance. He ventured to say that in the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition, and those who acted with him, there were matters in the last thirty-four clauses of the Bill as important as, and perhaps more important than, the matter contained in the
  1452
  first four clauses of the Bill. Complete freedom of discussion they could not get under this Resolution oven if it were pissed in the amended form which he advocated. He urged that the critics of the Bill, friendly as well as hostile, should be the judges of what were the important clauses among the thirty-four remaining in the Bill. He thought that was a reasonable plea. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to minimise the importance of the Bill by saving that those clauses were only enabling clauses. They were enabling clauses for which there was no precedent at all, and which were dangerous when they were dealing with the future defences of the country. If they looked at the subject-matter of that part of the Bill, they would find that three questions of immense interest were involved—the organisation, the training, and the obligation to serve in the

  1453
  Auxiliary Forces. The Government under those thirty-four clauses took to themselves enabling powers so full that they could organise the Auxiliary Forces out of existence or as an amalgamated body, or as a Territorial Army, or as a special reserve. Critics, friendly as well as hostile, were entitled to choose the clauses which raised these important points. Full information should be given as to the organisation which the Government have decided ultimately to adopt. The Government said that the Territorial Force was to be; trained for fifteen days, but in a subsequent section power was taken to train that force for thirty days, and in another for eight days, or no days at all. On that matter the Bill gave the Government the widest possible latitude. Again, the really adequate training was only to be given after war had broken out, and not before. Further, under the Bill they gave themselves the enabling power to accept those forces for foreign service. Therefore the House was entitled to say that they should have full opportunities for discussion of Clauses 6 and 32 which dealt with organisation; of Clauses 11. and 12, which dealt with obligation to serve; and of Clauses 14 to 16, which dealt with training. His plea was that five days should be given to discuss those thirty-four clauses, which would make an average of seven clauses per day.
  Amendment proposed—
  " In line 10, to leave out from the word ' That,' to the word ' allotted,' in line 20, and insert the words ' the remaining Clauses of the Bill and the Schedules, and any new Government Clauses and any new Government Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the seventh.' ''—(Mir. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."
  MR. HALDANEsaid that the unhappy person who had to reply so frequently was in a very difficult position. The House had just finished a series of criticisms upon the importance of giving prominence to the financial aspect of the Bill and that more time should be given to it. Now the questions of importance were said to be
  1454
  organisation, training, and obligation to serve; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover proposed that the whole of the later stages of the Bill should be taken up with the discussion of those subjects. The fact was that while there was agreement as to Clause 1 being the most important part of the Bill—[OPPOSITION cries of "No."]—in the early parts of the discussion every Member of the Opposition agreed in differing as to the other subjects of importance to be selected for debate; there was no common basis of agreement. The scheme for the allotment of time had been carefully thought out, although nothing was perfect in this imperfect world. He repeated again that the Bill was a measure to give effect to plans which were set out at great length on the introduction of the Estimates, on the First Reading of the Bill, and were subject to a three days' discussion on Second Reading. What they had now to discuss in Committee was simply the instruments which were necessary to carry out those plans, it was too late to discuss the principle of the Bill in Committee. The real time to discuss the principle of the Bill was not in Committee, but on the First and Second Reading. For these reasons he was prepared to maintain that the allotment of time for the discussion of clauses in Committee was wise and most reasonable.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid they did not complain of the right hon. Gentleman being too brief. Nor did they complain of his being too prolix, but what they did find fault with was that the right hon. Gentleman gave the Opposition no opportunity of answering him by way of criticism after he had expounded his position. His noble friend the Member for Marylebone had pointed out that this was one more step, and a most noticeable and marked one, in the process of transferring to the Government the powers which had hitherto been vested in the House. That statement had been illustrated by what the right hon. Gentleman had just said. The Prime Minister, earlier in the evening, justified his right hon. friend by saying that the scheme had been carefully thought out by the Secretary of State and his advisers. He did not doubt it; but the House was entitled to think it out, and express an opinion upon

  1455
  it. The Secretary of State had said that not only had the scheme of Army reform been carefully thought out by him, but also the scheme for the allocation of the time to be devoted to its discussion. Thon the right hon. Gentle man said to them, in effect, "What more do you want," and apparently thought he
  should be judge in his own cause, and the House of Commons were not expected to pronounce any opinion.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 293; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 159.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hooper, A. G.

  Agnew, George William

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cowan. W. H.

  Hudson, Walter

  Alden, Percy

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Crooks, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Armitage, R.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Armstrong, W. f. Heaton

  Crossley, William J.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Astbury, John Heir

  Davies,David (Montgomery Co.

  Jenkins, J.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Davies, M Vaughan (Cardigan

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Baker.Joseph A.(Finsbnry, E.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones,SirD. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Delany, William

  Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

  .Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Duckworth, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Barnes, G. N

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

  Dunne,Major E. Martin(Walsall

  King,Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Beale. W. P.

  Elibank, Master of

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Beauchamp, E.

  Erskine, David C.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Beck. A, Cecil

  Essex, R. W.

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

  Bell, Richard

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Bellair, Carlyon

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lambert, George

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

  Everett. R. Lacey

  Lamont, Norman

  Berridge. T. H. D.

  Fenwick, Charles

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

  Bertram, Julius

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Fiennes. Hon. Eustace

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lever,W.H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

  Billson, Alfred

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lewis, John Lewis

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fullerton. Hugh

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brace. William

  Gardner,Col.Alan (Hereford.S.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gladstone, Rt,Hn,Herbert John

  Lundon, W.

  Brigg, John

  Glover, Thomas

  Lupton, Arnold

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lynch, H. B.

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gust, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Burnveat, W, J. D.

  Gulland, John W.

  Macpherson. J. T.

  Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas

  Gnrdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mac Veigh Charles (Donegal,E.)

  Buxton.Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

  Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B.

  M'Crae, George

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Kenna, Rt Hon. Reginald

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hart-Davies, T.

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

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Carr-Gomm. H. W.

  Harwood, George

  Maddison, Frederick

  Causton.Rt.Hn.Rich'rdKnight

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hedges. A. Paget

  Marks, G.Croydon (Launceston)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R,

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Marnham F. J.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Massie J.

  Cleland, J. W.

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clough. William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Meagher, Michael

  Clynes, J. R.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Menzies, Walter

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mieklem, Nathaniel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cooper, G. J.

  HobHouse. Charles, E. H.

  Mond, A.

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

  Hodge, John

  Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morrell, Philip

  Morton, Alpneus Ceopnas

  Roche, Augusune (Cork.)

  verney,F. W.

  Napier, T. B.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Vivian, Henry

  Newness, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Newnes, Sir George (Swarsea)

  Rowlands, J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Nicholson.Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Russell, T, W.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Samuel,Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n

  O'Brien.Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wardle, George J.

  'O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Waring, Walter

  O'Grady, J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Seddon, J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Perks, Robert William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Philipps.Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Whitbread, Howard

  Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Philipps. Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Price,C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Price,Robert John (Norfolk,E.)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Whitley.John Henry (Halifax)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Summerbell, T.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarbero'

  Taylor.Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury

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

  Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Richards.T. F. (Wolverhampton

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thomas.David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Young, Samuel

  Robertson.Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Tomkinson, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Robinson, S.

  Toulmin, George

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Ure, Alexander

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craig,Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Ashley, W. W.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Aubrey- Fletcher,Rt.Hon.Sir H.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Moore, William

  Banner, John S. Harmood

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gordon, J.,

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Haddock, George R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Bridgeman, W Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.:

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Carlile. E. Hildred

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C. W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley,Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clark,George Smith (Belfast,N.

  Lee.Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm.

  Thomson,W.Mitchell- (Lanark)

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

  Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long.Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

  Tunour, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Vincent,Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim.S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  1458

  1459

  Walrond. Hon. Lionel

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

  Younger, George

  Viscount Valentia.

  Amendment proposed—
  " In line 60, at the end, to add the words, 'After the passing of this order on any day on which any proceedings on the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill, including the financial Resolution relating thereto, stand as first order of the day, no opposed private business shall be taken.'"—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 333; Noes, 81. (Division List No. 160.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Agnew, George William

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hart-Davies. T.

  Alden, Percy

  Corbett, C.H.(Sussex,E.Gr'st'd

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale).

  Allen, A.Acland (Christchurch)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harwood. George

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cory, Clifford John

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth).

  Armitage, R.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crean, Eugene

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crooks, William

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Baker.Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Crossley, William J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dalmeny, Lord

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies,David (Montgomery Co.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Davies, M.Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Delany, William

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone. N.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hodge, John

  Beale, W. P.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

  Hogan, Michael

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dillon, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hooper, A. G.

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Duckworth, James

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bertram, Julius

  Duffy, William J.

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Billson, Alfred

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dunne,MajorE.Martin (Walsall

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Boland, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Erskine, David C.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Brace, William

  Essex, R, W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Brigg, John

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jones,Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Brooke, Stopford

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Brunner.Rt.Hn. Sir J.T. (Ches.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kekcwich, Sir George

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Field, William

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Buxton.Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles

  Findlay, Alexander

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Cairns, Thomas

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Causton.Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

  Gardner.Col. Alan (Hereford.S.

  Lambert, George

  Cawley,. Sir Frederick

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Lamont, Norman

  Chance, Frederick William

  Glover, Thomas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lea.Hugh Cecil (St.Pancras, E.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gooch, GeorgePeabody

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lever,A.Levy (Essex,Harwich),

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral),

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Clough, William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gywnn, Stephen Lucius

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lough, Thomas

  Cogon, Denis J.

  Halpin, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lynch, H. B,

  Perks, Robert William

  Summerbell, T.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Philipps.Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkBg'hs)

  Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pollard, Dr.

  Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen; E.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  MacVeagh,Charles (Donegal,E.

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

  Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

  M'Crae, George

  Price.Robert John (Norfolk, E,

  Thomasson, Franklin

  M'Kean, John

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Thompson, J.W. H. (S'merset, E.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Killop, W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Toulmin, George

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

  Rainy, A. Rolland,.

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Verney, F. W.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Vivian, Henry

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Markham. Arthur Basil

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Marnham, F. J.

  Renton, Major Leslie,

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Massie, J.

  Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampt'n

  Waring, Walter

  Meagher, Michael

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Menzies, Walter

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, John Catheart(Orkney)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Molteno. Percy Alport

  Robertson.Sir G. Scott(Br'df'rd

  Watt, Henry A.

  Mond, A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robinson, S.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitbread, Howard

  Morrell, Philip

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Morton. Alpheus Cleophas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Napier, T. B.

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Rowlands, J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Russell, T. W.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Nicholson, Charles N.Doncas'r)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nussey, Thomas Willams

  Sears, J. E.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nuttall, Harty

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Seddon, J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sheehy, David

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Grady, J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Hare Patrick

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Young, Samuel

  O'Kelly.James (Roscommon,N

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—.

  O'Shee, James John

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Pease.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Pearee, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock),

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt. Hn.Sir H.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Craig,Captain James(Down, E,

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cecil,Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Bowles, G. Stewart

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Clark,George Smith(Belfast,N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Gordon, J.

  1462

  1463

  Haddock, George R.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hamilton. Marquess of

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark]

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Moore, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Turnour, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawlinson,John Frederick Peel

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hervey,F.W.F.(Bury S.Edm's)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sheffield.Sir BerkeleyGeorgeD.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Younger, George

  Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col. A.R.

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

  Long,Col. CharlesW. (Evesham)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Long,Rt.Hon. Walter (Dublin.S

  Starkey, John R.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Staveley-Hill Henry (Staff'sh.

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

  Ordered, That the Committee stage and Report stage of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill, including the financial Resolution relating thereto, shall be proceeded with in the following manner:—(a) That Clauses 1 and 2 and the Committee stage of the financial Resolution be proceeded with and proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; (b) That the Report stage of the financial Resolution and Clauses 3 and 4 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day; (c) That Clauses 5 to 7 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the third allotted day; (d) That Clauses 8 to 12 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the fourth allotted day; (e) That Clauses 13 to 27 be proceeded with and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the fifth allotted day; (f) That the remaining clauses of the Bill and the schedules, and any new Government clauses and any new Government schedules, and any other matters necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion, be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the sixth allotted day, and that the Chairman report the Bill to the House without Question put; (g) That two allotted days be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and that new clauses and Clauses 1 to 15 of the Bill be proceeded with on the first of those allotted days and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day, and that the remaining clauses of the Bill and the schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion, be proceeded with on the second of those allotted days and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day.
  After this Order comes into operation; any day (other than a Friday) shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any stage of the financial Resolution relating thereto is put down as the first Order of the Day, followed by the Bill
  At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are to be brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall, if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses or schedules' he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be.
  At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order of the Day, or if that day is a Friday at 5 p.m., the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that stage of the Bill.
  Proceedings to which this Order relates shall not, on any allotted day on which proceedings or any business are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, be interrupted under the provisions of

  1465
  any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  After the passing of this Order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Territorial aid Reserve Forces Bill (including the financial Resolution relating thereto) stand as first Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order 10, nor Motion to postpone a clause shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question
  1466
  on any such Motion shall be put forth-with without debate.
  After the passing of this Order on any day on which any proceedings on the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill, including the financial Resolution relating thereto, stand as first Order of the Day, no opposed Private Business shall be taken.—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Adjourned at twenty - eight minutes after Eleven o'clock.