Commons Sitting of 31 July 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Manchester (North-West Division), in the room of Sir George Kemp (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Illingworth.]

PEIVATE BUSINESS.
Metropolitan Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow.
Glasgow Corporation (Water) Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 23rd July, and agreed to.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow.
Fylde Water Board Bill,
National Electric Construction Company Bill,
Swansea Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 23rd July, and agreed to.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
London County Council (Finance) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Blyth Harbour Bill [Lords],
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Manchester Royal Exchange Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; Amendments made:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Midland Railway (London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Purchase) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Nottingham Mechanics Institution Bill [Lords] (by Order),
As amended, considered; Amendments made:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow, at a Quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,
Sea Fisheries (Lynn) Provisional Orders Bill,
Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till To-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill (Lords],
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation, Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,
Local Government Provisional (No. 14) Bill,
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill,
Keighley Corporation Bill,
Sheffield Corporation Bill,
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Rhymney Valley Sewerage Board Bill [Lords],
Ericht Water and Electric Power Bill [Lords],
South Suburban Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the enfranchisement of the sites of places of worship held under lease." [Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Clyde Valley Electrical Power Company." [Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Admiralty to construct and maintain a pier at North Killingholme, on the River Humber; and for purposes in connection therewith." [North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill [Lords.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords], Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 303.]

COPYRIGHT IN GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.
Copy ordered "of Treasury Minute dated the 28th day of June, 1912, dealing with Copyright in Government Publications."—[Mr. Masterman.]

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT (1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Report of the Southampton Harbour Commission, with Appendices and Map [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BANKRUPTCY.
Copy presented of Twenty-ninth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Sixty-seventh Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland for the year ending 31st December, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
Copy presented of Form of the Orders made under Section 78 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, with reference to the

2021
constitution of Insurance Committees, together with list of Counties and County-Boroughs for which such Orders have been made [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

PACIFIC CABLE ACT, 1901.
Account presented showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Pacific Cable Act, 1901, and of the Money received, expended, and borrowed, and Securities created under the said Act, to the 31st March, 1912, together with a Copy of the Report of the Chairman of the Pacific Cable Board [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations for the Training of Teachers for Elementary Schools (in force from 1st August, 1912) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND) ACCOUNT.
Copy presented of Return showing (1) the principal statutory provisions affecting payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and (2) the amount of such payments for the financial year 1911–12 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 24th July; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Oil Fuel.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Oil Fuel Committee is to consider the question of electrical marine propulsion with electricity generated by high speed internal-combustion engines and delivered
  2022
  to induction motors on propeller shafts, as fitted in the United States navy collier "Jupiter," now under construction at the Mare Island navy yard?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The Commissioners must put their own interpretation upon their terms of reference. I have no doubt it will be liberal. The point of the hon. and gallant Member's question shall be brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Commission.
  Captain FABER: May I ask whether the Oil Committee will sit on anything except oil?
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Jupiter" is a ship of 12,000 tons, with 7,000 horsepower engines, and if the expectations of the designers are realised, namely, that they will get 91 per cent, of efficiency, it will probably result in an entire revolution in the whole system of propelling ships?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The question shall be brought to the attention of the Chairman of the Commission.
  Mr. LYELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the terms of reference are?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot state the terms except in general terms. It will be the duty of the Commission to inquire into the supply of oil fuel, liquid fuel, and its application as a means of propulsion.

  Petitions to Admiralty.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can see his way to extend the time usually allowed for new petitions to be presented from one month to two months in order that the men may have reasonable time to consider the recent replies of the Board?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It has been decided that the new petitions shall be presented by the 1st September. The hearing of these petitions by the Board will take place thereafter, and due notice will be given to each of the Home Yards.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year he told me these petitions should not be required to be answered within a month or two, and are we to rely on his statement?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Any statement I make the hon. Gentleman may rely upon.

  Royal Dockyards.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether all dockyard labourers are to participate in the 1s. increase of wages; and, if not, why this course is not to be adopted?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: All ordinary labourers employed in His Majesty's dockyards and all skilled labourers on the minimum rate will participate in the 1s. a week increase as from to-morrow. The special rate maximum for skilled labourers will also be increased by 1s. a week from tomorrow.
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that men have been entered in the expense accounts offices at several of the dockyards without being called upon to pass a competitive examination; whether, if decided to permanently increase the staff of this department, such additional entries will only be made from an examination list; and will he state when it is proposed to hold an examination for vacancies in this and other departments?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Any writers who may have been entered in the expense accounts department recently without competitive examination have been entered for purely temporary service. It is intended in future to fill all permanent vacancies on the writing staff by the entry of boy writers, who will obtain their appointments by open competitive examinations conducted by the Civil Service Commission. No further examinations for the direct entry of hired writers will, therefore, be held.

  H.M.S. "Lion" (Crew Spaces, Ventilation).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to give the House any further information regarding the want of ventilation in the seamen's and petty officers' quarters on His Majesty's Ship "Lion"; whether he is aware that the hammocks are slung too close together, and that the quarters are bounded on the one side by the plates of the boiler-room and on the other by the sides of the ship; will he give the dimensions of the seamen's and petty officers' quarters; and say how many men occupied these quarters during the manœuvres?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The commanding officer reports that the arrangements for
  2024
  ventilating appear to be quite satisfactory. The sleeping accommodation is rather cramped, but extra berths are being provided. The dimensions of the seamen's sleeping quarters are about 20,750 cubic feet, and of the petty officers' sleeping quarters 13,300 cubic feet. The approximate numbers were 234 seamen and ninety-three petty officers. With regard to the third part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that I definitely informed him in this House on the 15th of this month that none of the quarters are bounded by the boilers.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my question on this occasion is not the same as the question I put before? What I asked then was whether the quarters were bounded by the boilers; what I ask now is whether the quarters are bounded by the boiler-room?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a difference without a distinction. The question put to me on 15th June was whether the quarters were bounded by the boilers, and I said no, they were not. Now the hon. Member asks whether they are bounded by the boiler-room, and I say no again.

  Admiralty and Outports Clerical Federation (Petition).
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked when a reply will be given to the petition of the Admiralty and Outports Clerical Federation?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret that I am not yet in a position to say when a reply will be given to this petition, but steps are being taken to bring the matter to am early conclusion.

  Universal Military Training (Australia).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can furnish any particulars as to the operation of the scheme of universal military training in Australia, and especially whether any opposition to the working of the scheme has been experienced?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have no official information beyond that given at page 17 of Cd. 6091.

  West Coast of Africa (Steamship Lines).
  Mr. LYELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state

  2025
  what steamship lines ply to and from British ports on the West Coast of Africa; whether these steamships are the only means of returning home open to Government officials on leave; whether he is satisfied with their sanitary condition; and whether they enjoy any Government subsidy either from his Department or in consideration of carrying His Majesty's mails?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The steamship lines plying between this country and the West Coast of Africa are the various lines controlled by Messrs. Elder, Dempster and Co., and the Woermann Line, controlled by Messrs. Woermann. The passages of Colonial officers returning to England on leave of absence from West Africa are provided by the Colonial Government and are taken by one of these lines. I am not in a position to exercise any control over the sanitary conditions on board these boats. These steamship lines do not enjoy any Government subsidy, except a payment for conveyance of His Majesty's mails.
  Mr. LYELL: Have any complaints been received of the sanitary condition?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, I believe complaints have been received.

  Pacific Phosphates Company.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (10) whether, in view of the value of the phosphate deposits on Ocean Island, he will consider the possibility, by quashing the present licence held by the Pacific Phosphates Company, which allows them to make a profit of £300,000 on a paid-up capital of £50,000, to pay all the island expenses, and leave a margin for the purposes of home expenditure, thus relieving the natives of their liability to pay taxes and providing money for social reform purposes with the balance of profit; (11) whether the Ocean Island phosphate licence was secured by the Pacific Islands Company, now called the Pacific Phosphates Company, of which the late Lord Stanmore, formerly Governor of Fiji and High Commissioner of the Western Pacific, was chairman; whether he is aware that the list of directors includes, or has included, the names of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Sir W. H. Lever; whether the list of shareholders, past and present, includes the Hon. Sir Robert G. Wyndham Herbert, formerly permanent Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and Sir Edwin
  2026
  Durning Lawrence; that the original agreement was for an annual payment of £50; and that the present agreement, entered into for ninety-nine years, stipulates for a royalty of 6d. per ton; whether that agreement was signed by the Colonial Office on the statement made by the company that the price of the phosphate in the island was 10s. per ton; whether he is aware that the actual price realised ever £2 per ton in the island; and whether, in view of the discrepancy between the price of phosphate quoted to secure the licence and the actual prices secured, and in view of the standing of some of the directors and shareholders who have held positions of trust, either in the Pacific or in the Colonial Office, he will consider the desirability of holding an independent public investigation?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The only contingencies in which I am empowered to revoke the Pacific Phosphates Company's licence are non-payment of rent and royalties, breach of any covenant, and failure to comply with the conditions that at least two-thirds of the directors must be British subjects. The royalties at present payable by the company are credited to the general revenue of the Protectorate. I have been for some time in negotiation with the company for the payment of a further contribution for the special benefit of the natives of Ocean Island. As regards the second question, some of the facts mentioned by the hon. Member are within my knowledge, but not others. I see no necessity for the holding of the suggested investigation.
  Mr. POINTER: Seeing that the Secretary of State for War, when he was at the Colonial Office, agreed that the royalties should be fixed at sixpence because of the false information given him, does not that constitute a reason for investigating the whole of the facts?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am in communication with the company at the present time on the whole subject.
  Mr. POINTER: Seeing that the Colonial Office makes a claim of fair treatment for the natives, can that claim be upheld if gentlemen who have been in the Colonial administration use for their private profit afterwards information they have received while in the employ of the Crown? Can that be said to be treating the natives fairly?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I can hardly agree with the hon. Member's statement.
  Mr. KING: Are any of the statements in the question definitely repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman? Does he accept the facts as far as he knows them?
  Mr. HARCOURT: What I said was that some of the facts mentioned by the hon. Member are within my knowledge, but not others.
  Major ARCHER -SHEE: Have the natives been injured in any way by the development of this industry?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Opinions may differ on that point.

  Signboards (Suggested Taxation).
  Captain MURRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the Bill recently passed by the French Chamber of Deputies, which proposes that the signboards, advertising various medicinal and commercial products which, in the opinion of many, disfigure the landscape on both sides of the railway lines in France, should be subjected to taxation at the rate of £2 a year the square yard for boards under six yards in length, £4 the square yard for those under ten yards £8 the square yard for those under twenty yards, and £16 the square yard for all over that size; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing taxation of a similar nature in this country?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am in complete sympathy with the object that prompts my hon. and gallant Friend's question, but I fear I can give no undertaking on the point.

  Consols and Government Stock (Holders).
  Mr. BECKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the number of those whose names appear in the books of the Bank of England as holding Consols and Government Stock in the years 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, and 1911, respectively?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Regard being had, inter alia, to the very great labour involved, I do not see my way to ask the Bank of England to undertake the investigation suggested by my hon. Friend.

  Finance Act, 1909–10 (Valuation).
  Mr. HOAREasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that valuers are claiming the right to make domiciliary visits to private houses under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; which Section of the Act justifies the claim; whether every house in the country is to be entered; if so, how long the valuation is estimated to take before it is completed; if only certain houses, upon what principle the selection is made; whether he is aware that valuers are excusing themselves on the ground that their visits will only occupy some few minutes; and, if so, what is the use of so perfunctory a valuation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The authority to make such inspections is contained in Section 31 (2) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. Inspection will be made in all cases where it is necessary for the purpose of arriving at a correct valuation, and the time occupied by such inspection must depend upon the circumstances of each case. It is anticipated that the original valuation will be completed by the 31st March, 1915.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases the valuers remain in a house a very long time and take actual drawings of the rooms, while in other cases they spend about ten minutes in a very large house? Can he give any reason for such a difference in the procedure adopted?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Possibly it is due to the attendant circumstances. I have no doubt they acquire all the information necessary to assess the value of the site.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Referee that the Government valuation of thirty-five acres of land at Woodhall Spa was inaccurate to the extent of 20 per cent. or £1,000; whether he has seen the statement in evidence of the superintending valuer of the eastern division that he had no instructions regarding the method of valuation under the Act and that this valuation had been carried out on the same basis as all other valuations in the same district; and can he state the difference between the total value of the land in the eastern district, which has already been valued, as shown on these valuations, and

  2029
  its total value where the existing valuations have all been revised in accordance with the Referee's decision?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I understand that the statement of the superintending valuer, as regards not having received instructions, referred to the particular hereditament which was then in question. With regard to the third part of the question, the decision of the Referee in this case does not affect any land other than the thirty-five acres referred to by the hon. Member.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many more test cases will be necessary before he alters the method of valuation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I have already pointed out in Debate, when I had an opportunity of stating the case fully, very few cases in proportion to the number of assessments have been reversed. Can the hon. Gentleman point to any valuation in any part of the United Kingdom where there have been as few reversals on appeal?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman point to a single case where there has not been a reversal?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I certainly could not without notice. Does anyone imagine that any Minister can carry all these cases in his mind? As I have already pointed out to the House, the number of appeals is singularly small, and there are about 2,000,000 cases where the assessments have been settled.

  Income Tax Assessment.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount of gross assessment for Income Tax for the years ending 1910, 1911, and 1912?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The gross income brought under review for Income Tax purposes was as follows:—

  Year.

  Amount.

  £

  1909–10

  …

  …

  1,011.100,345

  1910–11

  …

  …

  1,045,833,775

  Owing to the delay in passing the Finance Bill for 1909–10 the figures for that year are somewhat lower, and those for the
  2030
  year 1910–11 somewhat higher than they would have been in normal circumstances. The actual figures for the year 1911–12 are not yet available.

  Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Industrial and Provident Societies Amendment Bill was introduced as a Government Bill in 1910 and passed its Second Reading after discussion in this House without a division, the increasing demand on the part of co-operative societies to be allowed as provided by the Bill to increase the maximum amount of their shareholders' interests beyond the present limit of £200 and the urgent necessity since the judgment of the House of Lords in Eccles Provident Society v. Griffiths of regularising by Act of Parliament the prevailing system of nominating members' shares in favour of others, the Government will, in compliance with the unanimous desire of all such societies, whether industrial, agricultural, or distributive, reintroduce the Bill with a view to its being passed into law this Session?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The matter is under consideration.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: In view of the great interest in this measure on the part of co-operators throughout the country, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will arrange for its reintroduction in another place at an early date?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have been seeing deputations on the subject, and I think that is one of the possible courses that may be adopted.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what is done with the manure and hides at the lairages where cattle from Ireland are landed, and if there is any attempt to disinfect before removal?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Foreign Animals Order of 1910 prohibits the removal of manure and hides from a foreign animals' wharf except with the

  2031
  permission of an inspector of the Board. Manure must be disinfected to the satisfaction of the inspector before removal, and if he is of opinion that either manure or hides may introduce disease, they are destroyed, or otherwise dealt with, in accordance with the instructions given by the Board.
  Mr. STANIER: Has any manure been allowed to be taken away?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not say without notice.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that this manure shall not be thrown overboard in the Mersey or the Avon to carry infection generally through the land?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will look into it.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has now decided to take any judicial action in the case of the foot-and-mouth disease not being reported in the Leicestershire outbreak?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The local authority for Leicestershire have decided to institute proceedings against the persons in charge of the animals first affected with foot-and-mouth disease at Great Bowden for failure to give notice in conformity with the requirements of Article 1 of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order of 1895.

  Experimental Fruit Plantation.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is proposed to make an annual Grant of £500 towards the cost of maintenance of an experimental fruit plantation to be established by the County Councils of Kent, Surrey, and Sussex; and whether, in view of the steady development of fruit culture in the counties of Gloucester, Worcester, and Hereford, he would be willing to consider an application from these western counties for a Grant for the same purpose?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: An annual Grant of £500 has been conditionally offered for the purpose mentioned in the first part of the question. When work has been begun at the Research Institution to be established in connection with Bristol University, I shall be glad to consider an application
  2032
  for a Grant under similar conditions for the benefit of the counties named in the second part of the question.
  Captain MURRAY: Is that a Grant given by the Board?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is from the Development Fund.

  Harborne Charity Trustees.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sum of £21 15s. 9d. has been demanded from the Harborne Charity Trustees for Reversion Duty on the determination of a lease granted by them; whether this claim is based on a valuation formally agreed to by the district valuer, or whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have altered the district valuer's figures and have thus doubled the claim for duty; whether the Commissioners claim the right to alter, against the taxpayer, figures agreed to in writing by the district valuers; and whether, in view of the fact that a test case governing the method of assessing Reversion Duty and affecting the Commissioners' claim in this particular case is now awaiting a hearing in the High Court, he will defer pressing this claim against the charity until the test case has been finally decided?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the claim is based on a valuation made in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; the figures provisionally agreed to by the district valuer were found to have been arrived at under a misapprehension as to the provisions of the law, and the case was accordingly referred back to him by the superintending valuer for correction without the intervention of the Commissioners, whose duty, however, it is to see that claims for duty are made upon a correct basis. The last part of the question does not arise inasmuch as the duty has already been paid.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to refund the duty if the decision of the test case is against him?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As a matter of fact that will be done.

  Increment Value Duty.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the public

  2033
  are being put to inconvenience by being unable to authoritatively ascertain when no Increment Value Duties are due on transactions in land, and by the delay in obtaining statements when any Increment Value Duties are due or claimed; can he state how many occasions have arisen out of the following transactions which have recently occurred in connection with four shops, known as Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7, Royal Parade, Golders Green, namely, four leases of over fourteen years, sale of free-hold of one shop and assignment of one lease of over fourteen years, the first of such transactions being in September, 1910; and can he say when the valuer will deal with these matters?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Monmouth on the subject of delay in assessing Increment Value Duty on death occasions. With regard to the remainder of the question, I am informed that the valuation of the part of Hendon Parish concerned has not yet been commenced, but that it is hoped to commence it at an early date.

  Motor Cars (Speed Limit).
  Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Marshfield (Gloucester) parish council have memorialised the Gloucester County Council asking it to prescribe a speed limit for their village, and that such memorial was refused; and whether, having regard to the feeling that exists at Marshfield, he can take any steps to assist the inhabitants in this matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I am in communication with the county council as to this matter.

  Mercantile Marine (Hygienic Conditions).
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the President of the Board of Trade (35) whether the statements contained in the annual report of Dr. Herbert Williams, medical officer of health for the Port of London, that, owing to the nature of the accommodation provided on merchant ships, the conditions are such as to predispose the dissemination of pulmonary tuberculosis; whether, as stated by Dr. Williams, whereas in the case of common lodging-houses occupied day and night an
  2034
  official space of 400 cubic feet per head is prescribed, in the case of seamen seventy-two cubic feet is considered sufficient space; and whether, having regard to Dr. Williams' comments on the accommodation for seamen and the absence of proper hygienic conditions, he intends to take any action; (36) whether out of 2,689 British merchant vessels which during the year 1911 entered the port of Newport (Mon.), and which were inspected by the port sanitary inspector, no fewer than 453 were discovered with sanitary defects in respect to accommodation and space provided for officers and crews; and whether he is proposing to take any steps in protecting those engaged in the mercantile marine in the way of ensuring their being enabled to carry on their work under proper hygienic conditions?
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I answered this question and the following question yesterday in conjunction with other questions on the same subject, as I understood that by an inadvertence the hon. Member's questions had not been starred. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the answers.

  Merchandise Marks Act.
  Mr. LARDNERasked the President of the Board of Trade the result of the recent prosecution, under the Merchandise Marks Act, against the Southmolton Shirt and Collar Company, Limited, for affixing to certain collars made by them a false trade description, consisting of the head of an Irish terrier, with the words "True Irish" beneath; whether this trade description is a trade-mark registered by a firm in Manchester which gave the order for the collars in question; and, if so, whether it is intended to institute proceedings against this firm?
  Mr. BUXTON: The result was that the company, on pleading guilty, was fined 10s. with £3 3s. costs. The trade description referred to resembles one registered by a Londonderry firm having a branch at Manchester. The question whether proceedings should be instituted against this Londonderry firm is receiving careful consideration.

  New Labour Exchange (Canning Town).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the contract for the building of the new

  2035
  Labour Exchange at Canning Town has been given out; and if he can say when the work will be started?
  Mr. BUXTON: A site has been purchased for the new Labour Exchange at Canning Town, but the contract has not yet been given out for the building. It is not at present possible to say when the building will be started.

  Agriculture and other Industries (Employment).
  Captain FABERasked the President of the Board of Trade the populations of England, Germany, and France, and the number and proportion of each, respectively, engaged in agriculture and in industries other than agriculture?
  Mr. BUXTON: The total number of occupied persons in the United Kingdom in 1901—the latest year for which figures are available—was 18,300,000, and of these 2,312,000, or 12.6 per cent., were engaged in agriculture; in Germany in 1907 the occupied population numbered 28,000,000, of whom 9,863,000, or 35.2 per cent., were engaged in agriculture. The corresponding figures for France in 1906 were 20,700,000, 8,766,000, and 42.3 per cent.
  Captain FABER: Are we to understand that in these protected countries the percentage of those engaged in agriculture is higher or lower than in England?
  Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member can draw his own inferences from the figures I have given him.
  Captain FABER: I was not asking for inferences, I was asking for facts.

  LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "TITANIC."

    WRECK COMMISSIONER'S REPORT.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report of the Advisory Committee with regard to the "Titanic" disaster and the evidence given before this Committee and its Subcommittee will be circulated with the Votes for the information of hon. Members, and when he proposes to lay any new Regulations based upon the Report of the Advisory Committee and the findings of the Court of Inquiry into the "Titanic" disaster upon the Table; whether he can undertake that they shall not be put in force until the House has
    2036
    had an opportunity to debate the subject; and whether he can say when that opportunity will be given?
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the President of the Board of Trade (42) when he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House the draft of the new Regulations governing the provision of life-saving, appliances at sea; and (43) if he will lay upon the Table of the House any Report by the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade with reference to the provision of life-saving appliances on board merchant ships made since the "Titanic" disaster; whether he has received any report on the same subject from his nautical advisers; and, if so, whether he can also lay their report?
    Mr. MORTONasked whether the Report of the Wreck Commissioner on the loss of the "Titanic" will be presented before the Recess; if so, will the House have an opportunity of considering it; and whether there will be any inquiry as to the neglect of the Board of Trade in not seeing that the "Titanic" was properly equipped with boats, etc., before being allowed to sail?
    Mr. BUXTON: I propose to have the Report of the Advisory Committee and of its Sub-committee printed as a Parliamentary Paper. I also propose at once to lay on the Table of the House Lord Mersey's Report. As regards the latter part of the question, perhaps the House will allow me to make a general statement. The Report of the Court was only delivered yesterday, and that of the Advisory Committee was only received on Monday. They could not, therefore, be printed and circulated in time to give hon. Members, and those interested in the question, an adequate opportunity of considering them before the House rises. Further, until the House is also in possession of the Revised Rules and Instructions dealing with safety at sea to be issued by the Board of Trade, any discussion would necessarily be of a perfunctory character. I have, with my advisers, been engaged in a very careful review of the whole situation. But the decisions provisionally come to, must, as I informed the House in the discussion on my Vote, be necessarily and properly reviewed by the light of the Reports of the Court and of the Advisory Committee. These have only just been received. The course I suggest, therefore, for the convenience of the House is this: The Rules,

    2037
    before they become effective, must lie on the Table of the House for forty days. But they cannot be "laid" while the House is not sitting. Even if I were in a position to lay the Rules and Instructions before the House on one of the last days of this part of the Session, the House I am sure would not desire that I should do so, inasmuch as the forty days would then begin to run from that period, and the Rules would become statutory before the House had had an opportunity of considering them.
    I would propose, therefore, to issue the proposed Rules and Regulations during the Recess in the form of a White Paper, which would be circulated to Members, and be available to the public. I am anxious that the Rules should, when promulgated, be, as far as possible, generally accepted; and this procedure will give the most unfettered opportunity to all those concerned of duly considering them before the House meets again. The Regulations, based on the White Paper, could be laid before the House on its reassembling. If the House then, with all the facts and documents before it, desired a general discussion on the whole question, a definite opportunity would be afforded on an early day after the Recess. I may point out that no real delay would be caused by the suggested procedure; for adequate notice of the alterations which may be required by the new Regulations, must in any case be given before they can be enforced. Further, as the House knows, as regards practically all ocean-going ships the public have, as regards boats, already provisional security from the voluntary action of the shipowners themselves, taken after the conferences with the Board of Trade some, time ago. I hope that the proposal I make may meet the views of the House.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Report of the Advisory Committee agrees more or less with the Report of the "Titanic" Court of Inquiry inasmuch as it recommends boats for all instead of boats for some?
    Mr. BUXTON: I would much rather not discuss the proposals of the Committee's Report piecemeal. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will, as soon as possible, be in possession of the full facts.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Do we understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that there is to be no temporary revision of the rules, the possibility
    2038
    of which the right hon. Gentleman fore-shadowed some weeks ago?
    Mr. BUXTON: What I said was that possibly it would be inexpedient, and I did not think it proper on the part of the Board of Trade or myself to issue regulations until we had the advantage of considering the Report of the "Titanic" Court of Inquiry, and also the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. These Reports I have only just received. I can assure hon. Members I have lost no time in preparing additional rules and regulations, but I am very anxious to see how far the conclusions I have come to with my advisers are in accord with those of the Court of Inquiry and the Advisory Committee. There will be really no delay. I stated this would be the proper procedure. I am extremely anxious the House should have a full opportunity of considering the matter when they have the Reports before them, and I think hon. Members will agree that until then no discussion would be of any value.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish Lord Mersey's findings as soon as possible?
    Mr. BUXTON: Yes, certainly. I hope to publish Lord Mersey's findings in the course of a few days.
    Mr. A. C. MORTON: Are we to understand that the Prime Minister will give us a day to consider this matter when the House reassembles in October?
    Mr. BUXTON: I thought I made that quite clear. I said that after the Recess, when the House has seen these Reports and the rules and regulations, if it desires an early discussion I have an undertaking from the Prime Minister that a day will be given for such discussion.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the Report of the American Committee be also circulated?
    Mr. BUXTON: I do not really think that is germane. I think we have ample opportunity for discussion on the Reports.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, for the convenience of Members, he will arrange that the answers to questions relating to the Government of Ireland Bill, which have been given during the Session

    2039
    until the Summer Adjournment, shall be grouped together and published before the commencement of the Autumn Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

    Government Bills (Home Secretary's Statement).
    Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Secretary of State for the Home Department stated in a speech at Pontyndd on 18th July that the Government of Ireland Bill, the Established Church (Wales) Bill, and the Franchise and Registration Bill would all become law in the year 1914 unless the public opinion of the electors of the country stopped them; and whether he will state the nature of the steps the Government propose to take to ascertain the views of the electors of the country on the three Bills?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The views of the electors of this country are expressed through their representatives in the House of Commons.

    Law Officers (Ireland).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, when Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecutions in Ireland, refused to take any notice of spurious insurance policies, by which many poor people in Ireland were deprived of their savings, and which have been held by the Irish Court of Appeal to be illegal, that his successor in the Attorney-Generalship acted similarly, and that the present Solicitor-General for Ireland has, since his accession to that office, acted as leading counsel for the Law Integrity Insurance Company in a case in which trial was evaded; whether it is usual for Law Officers of the Crown in England to act for companies evading the law; and, in the circumstances in Ireland, whether he will take any steps to revive for the public there the protection afforded in England by the Director of Public Prosecutions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed by the Irish Government that the answer to each paragraph of the question is in the negative. All the duties of the
    2040
    Director of Prosecutions in England are discharged in Ireland by the Attorney-General.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the present Solicitor-General for Ireland was adviser to any Government Department at the time of this trial?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that question without notice.
    Mr. GINNELL: May I ask whether the Irish Government were aware of the advice given by Mr. Moloney to this company when he was made Solicitor-General?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have already stated I am informed by the Irish Government that the answer to each paragraph in the question is in the negative.

    Imperial and Local Taxation (Agricultural Land).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Government propose to propound or approve officially a policy of throwing additional burdens upon agricultural industry by the imposition of a tax levied upon the site value of agricultural land pending the issue of the Report of the Treasury Departmental Committee on the relations between Imperial and Local Taxation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answers which I have recently given with regard to the intentions of the Government in these matters, and to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a question by the hon. Member for Enfield on 6th June.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: In view of the general interest in this matter and the anxiety that is being felt by some classes of the community, can the right hon. Gentleman accelerate the issue of this Departmental Committee's Report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I see no reason to suppose there will be delay, but I will take note of the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how many appeals by pension officers were allowed by the Local

    2041
    Government Board during the period from 1st October, 1908, to 31st March, 1912?
    Mr. BURNS: During the period mentioned, 8,778 appeals were made by pension officers to the Local Government Board against decisions of the local pension committees on claims to an old age pension, or on questions raised with reference to the continuance of pensions, or as to the rate at which pensions should be paid. I find that in 3,908 of these appeals the decision of the pension committee was either reversed or modified by the Board as a result of the appeal made by the pension officer.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has got the percentage of cases in Ireland?
    Mr. BURNS: No, I have not, because the Local Government Board for England and Wales does not deal with them.

    Staffing Committee (Royal Navy).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now give, a definite date when Treasury concurrence will be given to the Admiralty proposals based on the Macnamara Staffing Committee's Report?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I fear I cannot add to my former answers on this question.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any committee is inquiring into the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Inquiries are taking place. I may be able to give the hon. Member an answer before the end of this part of the Session.

    Putumayo District (Rubber Collection).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been made aware that Mr. Arana, a Peruvian subject, sold his rubber business on the Putumayo to a British company, and that this business was carried on by criminal methods, including the treatment of natives by methods of slavery; and whether he will insist on adequate inquiries and guarantees in the case of the registration of British companies promoted to obtain and work foreign businesses and concessions, so as to prevent the recurrence of such events, which seriously compromise the commercial integrity of this country?
    Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade can only act in accordance with the powers conferred upon them by the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and that Act does not enable them to conduct inquiries or require guarantees on the registration of a company promoted to obtain and work foreign businesses and concessions.
    Mr. KING: In view of recent disclosures, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of applying for such powers as will enable him to make inquiries into companies of this kind in foreign countries?
    Mr. BUXTON: I will consider the matter. I shall be very glad to confer with my hon. Friend.

    New Pier (Courtown, Wexford).
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked if the right hon. Gentleman will instruct the Irish Board of Works to provide plans for the proposed new pier at Courtown, county Wexford, as requested by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I informed the hon. Baronet on Monday last, he is mistaken in thinking that the Board of Works have been asked by the Chief Secretary to provide plans for a pier at Courtown. I understand the hon. Member is anxious to obtain a Grant from the Development Fund for the improvement of Courtown. Harbour, and for this purpose it is necessary for the applicants to submit a scheme as required by the Regulations made under Section 1 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if inquiries have been made from the Chief Secretary?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have made inquiries and this is the result of those inquiries.

    Income Tax.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked what was the value of real property in England and Wales assessed to pay Income Tax in the year 1911, and the amount of personal property assessed in the same area and for the same purpose; and how much of the assessment on real property was derived from agricultural land and how much from house property?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The gross annual value of the property in England and Wales assessed under Schedule A—the Schedule under which real property generally is assessed—was £233,906,688 for the year 1910–11. There was, in addition, a considerable amount of income from real property included in the assessments of industrial concerns, such as railways, mines, etc., but there is no means of separating out this. With regard to personal property, the assessments on income derived there-from cannot, in general, be distinguished from those in respect of trades, professions, or employments. I have not sufficient information to be able to distinguish between the assessments relating to agricultural land and house property, but I may say that the gross income reviewed under Schedule A for the year 1910–11 from "Lands" (including tithe-rent charges, farmhouses, farm buildings, etc.) was £36,843,606, while the gross income from "Houses" (including business premises, factories, etc.) was £196,195,736.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Arising out of that reply, as these figures are seriously misleading to the general public, would it not be possible in future to distinguish between the income derived from agricultural land and other kinds of real property?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure. These figures have existed for a good many years.

    Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 (Valuation).
    Mr. HORNERasked the names of the Committee to be appointed to inquire into the methods of valuation under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, or, if the members have not yet been appointed, the number and class of men intended to be appointed, the scope of the Inquiry and powers of the Commission in regard to summoning evidence; whether evidence of witnesses, other than those summoned, will be accepted; whether the same Committee will inquire into the methods of valuation, both as regards Great Britain and Ireland; and, if so, which country will be first dealt with?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend is not prepared at present to make any further statement as to the scope and personnel of the proposed Committee
    2044
    regarding which I understand he is in communication with right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It will be for the Committee to decide on its own procedure, but it is intended that the inquiry shall include Ireland.

    Post Office (Government Buildings).
    Sir HAROLD ELVERSTONasked the Postmaster-General whether rent is paid by the Department for any of the buildings it occupies when those buildings are the property of the Government; and, if no rent is paid, what would the approximate rent of such buildings amount to?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Post Office buildings which are the property of the Government are generally the property of the Postmaster-General. In the few cases in which the Post Office is housed in buildings belonging to other Government Departments, no rent is paid, the general rule of Government being against such payments, but credit is taken by those Departments in the Estimates under the head of Services rendered.
    Sir H. ELVERSTON: Is it impossible to give an approximate idea of the number?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Where the Post Office is housed by other Departments, it is to be found in the Estimates.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    INSURED PERSONS (NUMBER).
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons have actually insured under the National Insurance Act; and how much has been received from the sale of insurance stamps to the latest date available?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am endeavouring to obtain further returns from approved societies and their branches as to the number of insured persons who have joined approved societies. With regard to the total number of insured persons, including those who have not yet joined societies, I cannot at present add anything to the estimates given in the later Actuaries' Report [Cd. 5983]. As I stated on Monday, the number of Health Insurance stamps sold up to 20th July was 15,396,000. No later figures are at present available.
    Mr. FELL: I asked what was the amount of money received: that was part of the question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am sorry; I will see if that is obtainable.

    SICK BENEFIT.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of members of friendly societies and trade unions giving sick benefit before the introduction of the National Insurance Bill; what is the number of members now of those societies and unions, or sections thereof, which have been approved, separating in each case the societies from the unions; and what is the number of members of the approved sections formed by industrial insurance companies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am obtaining further returns from approved societies and their branches and approved sections as to the number of their members. It is necessary, however, to circularise about 20,000 societies and branches for this purpose, and as a consequence of pressure in their offices, they have in many cases found it impracticable at present to render complete returns.

    CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS (MACHINE TENTERS).
    Mr. ASTORasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether a man employed in a charitable institution to look after a boiler, engine, and electrical plant is a person employed in mechanical engineering within the meaning of Part II. of the National Insurance Act, 1911?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): From certain decisions given by the Umpire, of which I am sending the hon. Member copies, it appears that contributions are not payable under Part II. of the Act in respect of workmen wholly or mainly engaged in driving, tenting, or minding machinery of the nature described in the question.

    SANATORIUM TREATMENT.
    Mr. ASTORasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state whether he has given, or will give, the approval of the Board to sanatoria for the treatment of insured persons without their having been inspected at some time by an officer of the Local Government Board?
    Mr. BURNS: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of Thursday last, in which I stated that the Board had then approved of eleven sanatoria and other residential institutions for a period of six months, and had communicated with the authorities of seventy-five other institutions, offering to approve of these institutions for a similar period. The great majority of these institutions have been inspected at one time or another by one of the medical officers or inspectors of the Board, and, as regards the remainder, I have sufficient information to justify their being approved for a limited period.
    Mr. ASTOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman approved any institution without inspection?
    Mr. BURNS: The amount of information the Board has, and which I believe is known to the hon. Gentleman himself, with regard to the value and capacity of institutions of this kind is so great that special inspection is hardly necessary.
    Mr. ASTOR: Why, then, has the right hon. Gentleman appointed additional inspectors?
    Mr. BURNS: For the purpose of coping with the additional work placed upon the Board by the Act.
    Mr. ASTORasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state whether domiciliary treatment for insured persons recommended for that form of sanatorium benefit has to be approved by the Local Government Board; if so, whether the Board propose to issue an Order or Memorandum dealing with this; and when the Order will be circulated?
    Mr. BURNS: The Local Government Board have already issued an Order prescribing the manner of domiciliary treatment of insured persons suffering from tuberculosis of which they approve for the purpose of Section 16 (1) (b) of the National Insurance Act.
    Mr. ASTOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the Memorandum of 6th July?
    Mr. BURNS: I am referring to a document I signed on Saturday and issued first thing on Monday morning.
    Mr. ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that up to Saturday or Monday there was no home treatment available?
    Mr. BURNS: There was home treatment available, but not on the distinct lines set forth in the Order issued on Monday.
    Mr. ASTOR: Does the Government propose to neglect what is definitely stated in Clause 16, Sub-section (b), of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. BURNS: The Government do not intend to neglect any aspect of the treatment of sick persons under the Insurance Act, and it was put into definite official form by the Order I have issued.
    Mr.GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury why Circular, Medical I., dated 25th July, 1912, and containing the terms of application for sanatorium benefit, was issued ten days after insured persons became entitled to such benefit under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The circular referred to was issued because it was understood that some insurance committees desired to have further guidance and suggestions in regard to the administration of sanatorium benefit. The circular was not necessary for the administration of sanatorium benefit, and a Memorandum on the same subject had been previously issued on the 6th July.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether an insured person will be able to sue his society for the non-provision of sanatorium benefit from 15th July; whether the society will in turn be able to sue the insurance committee; and whether any compensation will be payable to the insured person pending his receipt of the sanatorium benefit to which he may be entitled?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: An insured person is entitled to the sanatorium benefit for which he is recommended by the Insurance Committee, with whom rests the responsibility for making arrangements for such benefit. Disputes between insured persons and insurance committees will, under Section 67 of the Act, be decided in the manner prescribed by the Insurance Commissioners, who may appoint a Referee whose decision shall be final.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last paragraph of my question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman's question suggests that there will be a question arising between the insured person and his society as to the non-provision of sanatorium benefit. That question will not arise—if it does arise between the insured person and the society—but between the insured person and the Insurance Commissioners.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will any compensation be paid pending the receipt of sanatorium benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: "Compensation pending the receipt of sanatorium benefit" has no meaning at all to me.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Have there been yet any applications for sanatorium benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think there have been some, but not very many, and some of them have been dealt with.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: What compensation will an insured person be able to receive if there is no accommodation to provide sanatorium benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Any insured person who applies will receive the treatment recommended by the insurance committee.
    Mr. ASTORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state how many beds in residential institutions, other than sanatoria, which have been approved by the Local Government Board are now empty and available for insured persons?
    Mr. ASTORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state how many beds in sanatoria which have been approved by the Local Government Board are now empty and available for insured persons?
    Mr. BURNS: The Local Government Board have now approved for a period of six months of thirty sanatoria and other residential institutions, containing 1,172 beds, but, as I have previously informed the hon. Member, I cannot say how many of these beds are now available for insured persons.
    Mr. ASTOR: May I ask if there are any beds now available?
    Mr. BURNS: Yes, certainly.
    Mr. ASTOR: If the right hon. Gentleman knows there are some can he say how many?
    Mr. BURNS: If the hon. Member will give me the opportunity I will inform him.
    Mr. ASTOR: I have already asked for this information.
    Mr. BURNS: There are available at this moment four local authorities with special sanatoria accommodation for upwards of seventy beds; fifty-seven local authorities contract for patients in 200 beds; ninety-three infectious hospitals with provision for 970 beds; fourteen dispensaries run by local authorities; fifty voluntary dispensaries, and a number of other dispensaries and shelters for patients if they apply.
    Mr. ASTOR: How many of those beds are now empty and available?
    Mr. BURNS: I shall be delighted to do my best to comply with the precise question put by the hon. Member if he will put it down on the Paper.
    Mr. ASTOR: It is on the Paper.
    Mr. BURNS: I do not think the hon. Member expects me to telegraph every half-day or day for information.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: There are no beds.

    PRUDENTIAL SOCIETY.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that twenty window cleaners employed by the Robin Hood Window Cleaning Company, Nottingham, have been discharged in consequence of their refusal to make the Prudential Society their approved society under the National Health Insurance Act; and whether he will order an inquiry to be made into the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I had been informed of this case and had instituted inquiries. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as to the result.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Would it not be better that the result of the inquiry should be made public?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly. If my hon. Friend will put down a question I will answer it.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prudential are offering to the employers 1s. for every card they can collect before October, and is that not a form of bribery?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information on the matter.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire to see whether it is true or not?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly. If the hon. Member or anyone else can provide me with any material for an inquiry I shall be glad to institute one.

    SCOTTISH SOCIETIES.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the fact that, owing to the National Insurance scheme being nationalised for Scotland and England, certain Scottish societies refuse to admit, under the National Insurance Act, Scottish servants of Scottish employers temporarily resident in England, and in some cases have taken steps equivalent to removing old members; what steps the Insurance Commissioners intend to take regarding such societies; and what course should a servant who is to be married in England in six weeks and who is a member of a friendly society in Scotland, and who is refused permission to join the National Insurance side of that society, to take to ensure that she will not be deprived of the future benefits of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Scottish Insurance Commissioners have received no information of the nature referred to, but I shall be happy to have inquiries made into any case which is brought to my notice. A Scotch servant who proposes to marry and settle in England would in the circumstances stated be well advised to join a society approved by the Joint Committee and authorised to transact business under the Act in both England and Scotland. She would, of course, retain a right to share in any increased benefits provided by her first society under a scheme under Section 72 of the Act.

    MIDLAND RAILWAY FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
    Mr. JAMES THOMASasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Midland Railway Company at Birmingham has refused to pay sick benefit, in accordance with the Midland Railway Friendly Society's rules, to a member who was in receipt of compensation in respect of an accident which occurred prior to the National Insurance Act coming into operation, their refusal being based on the ground that this man not

    2051
    having made this particular society his approved one under the Act no sick pay would be paid; and whether he will say, in view of the effect of such treatment, what action he proposes to take to insure employés from being penalised in their choice of a society as provided by the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information on the case in question which does not appear to arise out of the business of the society under the National Insurance Act. If the hon. Member will furnish me with further particulars I will make inquiries from the society on the subject.

    LONDON AND PROVINCIAL APPROVED SOCIETY.
    Mr. GINNELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman will say when and under what name the London and Provincial Approved Society was registered under the Friendly Societies Acts; when and under what name it applied for approval under the National Insurance Act; and whether that society is allowed to operate pending the result of the inquiries regarding it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The London and Provincial Approved Society is not registered under the Friendly Societies Act. On 20th May, 1912, an application was received for the approval of a separate section of the London and Provincial Assurance Company, Limited, to be known, if and when approved, by the name of the London and Provincial Approved Society. This society was approved on 7th June, 1912, and has since that date been, and is still, carrying on the business of an approved society under the National Insurance Act.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it not a fact that they are calling themselves an approved society under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no knowledge of that fact. They certainly are not registered as an approved society unless they have been approved.

    UNITED NATIONAL FRIENDLY APPROVED SOCIETY.
    Mr. GINNELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman will say when, and under what name, the United National Friendly Approved Society was registered under the Friendly Societies Acts; when, and under what name, it applied for approval
    2052
    under the National Insurance Act, and whether that society is allowed to operate pending the result of the inquiries regarding it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The United National Friendly Approved Society is not registered under the Friendly Societies Acts. On 20th April, 1912, an application was received for the approval of a separate section of the United National Friendly Assurance Collecting Society, to be known, if and when approved, by the name of the United National Friendly Approved Society. The section was approved on 22nd June, 1912, and has since that date been, and is still, carrying on the business of an approved society under the National Insurance Act.

    FRIENDLY AND BENEFIT SOCIETIES.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the Insurance Commissioners make any distinction between, on the one hand, real friendly and benefit societies worked by the members for their mutual benefit as contemplated by the Act, and, on the other hand, individual speculators working for profit, calling themselves societies and submitting rules in conformity with the Act, but of which the persons insured have no knowledge or control; whether any guarantee of fidelity is required from such persons; and if he will state the degree of frequency and promptitude with which the administration of the National Insurance Act by such persons will be tested by Government auditors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Insurance Commissioners give consideration to all applications received by them for the approval of societies under the National Insurance Act, whether such applications proceed from existing friendly societies desiring approval as a whole or from companies carried on for profit proposing to establish separate sections in accordance with the provisions of the Act. All approved societies, of whatever type, are required to be under the control of their members. The Commissioners are not entitled to require a guarantee of fidelity from a society as a condition of granting approval, but every approved society is required to give security to provide against any malversation or misappropriation by its officers of any funds coming to the hands of the society under the Act. Every approved society must, when required, submit its accounts to audit by auditors appointed by the Treasury.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what amount of security a society is required to give, and how often their administration is tested by Government auditors?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think that is quite decided, but I think it will probably be done annually. I can answer that question better later on.

    WELSH INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS (APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked whether, in future appointments by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners to the outdoor staff, advertisement, selection, and examination will be followed as recommended in White Paper, Cd. 6231?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The method of selection referred to in the question was recommended by the Interdepartmental Committee only in the case of the initial appointments to the outdoor staff. If my hon. Friend will refer to paragraph 27 of the Report of that Committee he will see that, they contemplated future vacancies being filled by open competitive examination. I am not yet in a position to say what action will be taken upon the latter recommendation.
    Mr. E. JONESasked whether, in examinations held in connection with appointments by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, a paper testing the candidates' knowledge of Welsh will be set; and whether a Civil Service Commissioner will conduct the examination in Welsh?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Welsh Commissioners do not consider that an examination in Welsh is necessary, but they will satisfy themselves that a due proportion of the officers appointed to the outdoor stall in Wales shall be Welsh speaking.
    Mr. E. JONES: Is it not a fact that the Departmental Committee stated in its report that a knowledge of Welsh was indispensable?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure about that. The Commissioners certainly informed me that they intend to appoint a portion of their officers who shall be Welsh speaking.
    Mr. E. JONESasked whether an examination is shortly to be held in Wales for auditors under the National Insurance Act; and whether full particulars will be
    2054
    published in the Press and otherwise in good time for candidates to prepare for the examination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A common audit staff for the United Kingdom is being appointed by the Treasury. Applications for these appointments have already been invited, and the appointments are now being made.
    Mr. E. JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that he stated a week or two ago in reply to a question that an examination would be held in Wales?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I do not remember that. The auditors will be liable for service in any part of the Kingdom. Efforts will be made to appoint some who speak Welsh.
    Mr. E. JONES: Is it not a fact that in regard to the appointment of auditors for Wales there is a condition that they should have a knowledge of Welsh?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think so; certainly not in the audit department.
    Mr. E. JONESasked whether, in view of the comparatively limited number of candidates for insurance appointments in Wales, the examinations will be made open and competitive?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Welsh Commissioners are following the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee, under which equal opportunities are given to all properly qualified candidates, and in view of the promise made in this House that the appointments should be made by the Commissioners without influence by the Government I am not prepared to interfere with their discretion in the matter.

    GILLIES.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether gillies who are their own employers and voluntary contributors can pay less than 7d. a week when unemployed in any one week in which they contribute under the provisions of the National Insurance Act; if so, what is the amount of their contribution; and whether the definite statement that they can contribute less in these circumstances, made by the Financial Secretary on 22nd November, 1911, is correct?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Any weekly contribution which is

    2055
    paid must be a full-contribution. For voluntary contributors below 45 years of age entering into insurance before the 15th of January, 1913, the weekly rate is 7d., and for persons above that age it increases gradually to a maximum of 1s. 3½d. in the case of persons entering insurance at the age of 64 years. I think if the Noble Lord will refer again to the statement to which he alludes he will see that there is nothing in it which is inconsistent with what I have just stated. A voluntary contributor, when he pays a contribution, must pay the full amount due, but if he is unable to pay a contribution every week he will not on that account be excluded from benefits.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will convey that answer to the Liberal speakers in Scotland, and may I also ask him if the Financial Secretary's statement I referred to is not capable of being read both ways?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It was a perfectly clear statement, though I can understand that to some persons it might have another meaning.

    DEFENDENTS OF INSURED PERSONS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether a boy aged twelve suffering from tuberculosis, the son of an insured person under the National Insurance Act, can receive any benefit under the Act; and, if so, what benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Under Section 17 of the Act an insurance committee is empowered to extend sanatorium benefit to the dependents of insured persons.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Am I to understand that Section 17 empowers an insurance committee to give sanatorium benefit to the dependent of an insured person at once?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know who this boy is, but the insurance committee covering the area in which the boy is living can extend the sanatorium benefit to dependents of insured persons.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman name one single insurance committee which at the present time has arranged for sanatorium benefit for dependents of insured persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Any insurance committee could have done it, or it can do it at any time.
    Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for an extra hour for questions until this Act is better understood?

LONDON DOCKS (RIOTING).
Mr. W. THORNE: May I be allowed to put a question to the Home Secretary, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he is aware that between 6.30 and 7.30 this morning four men who were seeking work at the Victoria and Albert Docks were shot, and that two of them are now lying in a critical condition in the Seamen's Hospital; whether active steps are being taken to discover the guilty persons; and whether he can take steps to ensure that such dangerous persons are not allowed to carry firearms while at work? May I add that since giving notice of the question I have found out that at least twenty men have been treated in the Seamen's Hospital, and one of them has died?
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Commissioner of Police reports that disturbances arose this morning in the Albert and Victoria Docks owing to assaults by strikers on free labourers. The latter used revolvers, and four strikers were injured by revolver shots, two of them seriously. The man who fired two shots is known, and has been charged by the police. They will endeavour to find the others, if they have not done so already; but whether these persons were guilty of any offence depends upon the degree of danger to which they were exposed. I have no power to prevent them carrying firearms, however dangerous the practice may be. I have no information later than that. I have given.
Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine what will happen if the same number of men on the other side carry revolvers and shoot the blacklegs? May I also ask whether he is prepared to have an inquiry into this matter at once, because it is very serious?
Mr. McKENNA: I hope my hon. Friend will not press that point. The whole of the material which I have at present is that which I have read to the House. I shall have to inform myself first of the nature of the facts before I undertake to promise an inquiry.
Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the serious nature of the outrage I hope, Sir, you will give me a chance to-morrow of putting another question.
Mr. ALDEN: Are we to understand the Home Secretary is pursuing his investigations at the present time? Is he following up the inquiries that have already been made, and does he intend to keep on inquiring until he gets all the facts?
Mr. McKENNA: That was the intention I intended to convey to the House. The only information I have got at present is such information as I have read to the House. As soon as I have been able to inquire further into the facts myself, I shall be able to answer the hon. Member as to whether it is necessary to have an inquiry.
Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible to find out whether the men, I do not care whether they are union or non-union men, are possessed of firearms?
Mr. ALDEN: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to the police at the dock gates to search all men as they go into the docks? [HOB. MEMBERS: "No."] All the men are searched as they come out. Why not search them as they go in to see if they have any firearms?
Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any member of the public is not entitled to carry a revolver and to use it if he goes in bodily fear?
Mr. McKENNA: I have been asked this question at very short notice, and I am unwilling to answer without previous reference to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. ALDEN: It is not a matter of law. Is it not possible for the Authority owning the docks to see to it that every man going into the docks possesses a licence for any firearms he may carry on his person? Is it not possible for every person to be searched who enters the docks, the docks being private property?
Mr. McKENNA: I should doubt very much whether the Port Authority have any such power. I certainly could not answer without reference to the power the Port Authority may have.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman advise the strikers, if they are in danger of personal violence, to carry revolvers too?
Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend must not misunderstand me. I do not advise anybody, either free labourer or striker, to carry a revolver. I am only dealing with the question whether I have any power to interfere with a person who desires to carry a revolver.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to suggest there were extenuating circumstances, and that a man is entitled to use firearms if he thinks his life in danger?
Mr. McKENNA: It is most necessary there should be no misunderstanding. Let me again read the last sentence of my answer:—
"But whether these persons were guilty of any offence depends upon the degree of danger to which they were exposed. I have no power to prevent them carrying firearms, however dangerous the practice may be."
That is a simple statement of law.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Was it necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to make such a statement? Why did he not keep to the facts rather than make suggestions.
Mr. McKENNA: I was asked a specific question and it was in reply that I made this statement of law.

ESTIMATES (LOANS).
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he will state the precedents (dates, Statutes, and amounts) where Loans of Money as distinct from Grants were placed on the Estimates and included in the Appropriation Bill, whether the placing of Loans on the Votes is now to be regarded as embodied in the settled practice of the House, and when did the Treasury resolve to adopt this practice?
Mr. MASTERMAN: I have already stated in this House there are precedents going back over a series of years for loans or advances made under the authority of a Vote in Committee of Supply and the Appropriation Act. I have instanced the following cases:—
1899.—Gold Coast.—(Grant-in-Aid.)
Voted on a Supplementary Estimate on 31st July, 1899, and included in the Appropriation Act, 1899, 62–3 Vic, c. 49.
The exact amount, £29,441.

2059
1900–01.—Gold Coast.
£200,000 voted on a Supplementary Estimate on 2nd August, 1900, and included in the Appropriation Act, 1900, 63–4 Vic, c. 57.
£200,000 voted on a Supplementary Estimate on 19th March, 1901, and included in the Appropriation Act, 1901 (1 Edw. VII., c. 21).
1901.—Loan to Wuchang Viceroy.
£75,000 voted on a Supplementary Estimate 8th August, 1901, and included in the Appropriation Act, 1901 (1 Edw. VII., c. 21).
1910–11.—Uganda Railway Extension.
£120,000 voted on a Supplementary Estimate 19th July, 1910, included in the Appropriation Act, 1910 (10 Edw. VII. and 1 Geo. V., c. 14).
£60,000 voted on the original Estimates for 1911–12 on 14th August, 1911 and included in the Appropriation Act, 1911 (1 and 2 Geo. V., c. 15).
1911.—Baro-Kano Railway, Bauchi Extension (Northern Nigeria).
£10,000 voted on a Supplementary Estimate on 10th March, 1911.
£140,000 voted on 14th August, 1911, both included in the Appropriation Act, 1911 (1 and 2 Geo. V., c. 15).
To these I may now add:—
1901.—On 6th August, 1901, an advance (to be repaid out of the first loan to be issued) of £3,000,000 was voted on a Supplementary Estimate as part of a Grant-in-Aid of £6,500,000 to the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, and included in the Appropriation Act, 1901 (1 Edw. VII., c 21).
1902.—On 5th November, 1902, a further advance of £3,000,000 on similar terms to the Transvaal and Orange River Colony was voted, on an additional Estimate, and included in the Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 1902 (2 Edw. VII., c. 30).
The earliest precedent which I have been able to trace goes back to 1877, when on a Supplementary Estimate for 1876–7 a Grant of £35,000 (forming part of sums amounting in all to £105,000) was voted in aid of Fiji revenues, to be repaid should Colonial funds become available for the purpose. This sum was included in the Appropriation Act, 1877 (40–41 Vic, c. 61).
In each case Parliament was informed on the face of the Estimate that the Grant was made as an advance which would be repaid.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is it not in order for the Government in the case of advances to the Irish farmers to take the same course without a Statute?
Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot possibly answer that without notice. These were Grants-in-Aid.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Mr. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether, having regard to the fact that the Port of Drogheda is twenty-three miles distant from the centre of the foot-and-mouth disease and is the natural port for the county of Meath, where no case has existed, he can state when the Department propose to open the port?
Mr. BIRRELL: It is now over a week since the last appearance of foot-and-mouth disease on one of the farms at Swords, and the Department are closely watching the situation there. Should the disease remain inactive till the close of the present week, so as to ensure that an ample period for incubation has passed, they will be prepared to recommend the opening of the ports of Dundalk and Newry from Monday next, and the ports of Drogheda and Dublin a week later for shipments of fat cattle for immediate slaughter. These ports have been kept closed for adequate reasons, and can only be opened with the disappearance of the danger indicated.
Mr. MOONEY: I also wish to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, in accordance with private notice, if he has seen an official statement of the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Ireland, to the effect that he will advise the Board of Agriculture to remove the embargo on the ports of Newry and Dundalk on Monday next, and whether he is prepared to act on this advice?
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I have seen a communication to the hon. Gentleman from the Vice-President of the Irish Department. I have also heard the telegram from the Vice-President which has just been read to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. If there is no further outbreak in Ireland, I propose to permit Irish fat cattle from

2061
Dundalk and Newry to be landed at Birkenhead, Glasgow, Deptford, or Bristol foreign animals' wharves for slaughter therein on Monday, 12th August.
Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow cattle to be landed from Drogheda in the following week?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot answer, as Drogheda is much nearer the centre of the recent outbreak.
Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of allowing the landing of store cattle?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not prepared to consider the question of the importation of store cattle.
Mr. NANNETTI: Will this relief as to the opening of ports apply to Dublin?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Dublin is not only much nearer the centre of the outbreak, but it is actually within the scheduled area.
Mr. CLANCY: But the Chief Secretary has just stated that the same liberty would be given to Dublin as to Drogheda, and at the same time.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes. But I would point out that the importation of animals into England is a matter for the English Department, and it cannot divest itself of the responsibility which lay upon it and take a course which might lead to the admission of diseased animals.
Mr. CLANCY: But the Chief Secretary stated distinctly that a week after the removal of restrictions from Dundalk and Newry they would, in the event of no further cases occurring, be removed from Drogheda and Dublin.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I quite understood the purport of the answer read by my right hon. Friend. But this is a question of opening English ports, and not Irish ports; and I have to consider it with reference to English conditions.
Mr. CLANCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that, even if the Irish Department recommend the reopening of these ports, he will refuse to admit cattle from them into English ports?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not said that. I have said it is a matter we must decide in England.
Mr. FIELD: May I ask if in the event of Drogheda Port being opened next Monday the right hon. Gentleman will allow the import of cattle to be destroyed on landing? There will be no danger in that if the cattle are properly inspected.
Mr. STANIER: Has the President of the Board of Trade any information regarding the reported outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Shrewsbury Market?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, we received a report that foot-and-mouth disease had broken out in the Shrewsbury Market place, and we immediately despatched an inspector in order to confirm the report—one of the Board's most highly skilled veterinary officers. I am glad to say he reported it was not a case of foot-and-mouth disease, and therefore the preliminary steps taken in the county of Shrewsbury and surrounding districts were unnecessary.
Mr. BARNSTON: Have there been any outbreaks in Cheshire or any other part of that county?
Mr. RUNCIMAN: None.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very great anxiety prevails in Cheshire and the West of England at the ports of Birkenhead and Bristol remaining open for the importation of Irish cattle?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think notice should be given of that question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILL PRESENTED.
    HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To abolish the landlord's right of hypothec for rent in Scotland." Presented by Mr. DUNDAS WHITE; supported by Mr. Barnes, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. Watt, Sir John McCallum, Mr. Price, Colonel Greig, Mr. Godfrey Collins, and Mr. Pringle; to be read a second time upon Monday, 14th October, and to be printed. [Bill 301.]

    DEATH OF EMPEROB OF JAPAN.
    4.0 P.M.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move,
    "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to convey to His Majesty the expression of the deep regret with which this House has learned the news of the death of His Majesty's ally and friend the Emperor of Japan, and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty, the present Emperor, the profound sympathy of this House with the Imperial Family and with the Government and people of Japan."
    The death of the Emperor of Japan marks the close of the most memorable reign in modern history. The representative of the most ancient dynasty of the world, whose annals go back 2,000 years, experienced during the years which passed since he succeeded his father a series of changes for which it would be difficult to find a parellel both in the status of a Sovereign and the development of a people. The Emperor was to his subjects, when he ascended the Throne, the sacred embodiment of a secular tradition, which dominated, as it continues to do to-day, the imagination, and commanded the reverence of Japan, and which had for centuries ceased to have any effective relation with the actual government of the country. He witnessed in less than fifty years his own transformation from a semi-divine, carefully sequestered figure, the background of a national life, into a constitutional monarch, who, without losing any of the attributes of his ancestral position, became the mainspring, the central force, the pioneer and the leader of a transformation as vital and as complete in every department of activity, political, social, industrial, intellectual and moral, of his inherited dominion. Under his rule—how far
    2086
    from his own direct and personal initiative, how far from his sagacious and intuitive selection of wise and prescient counsellors, history may some day pronounce—Japan has emerged from a seclusion, which seemed inaccessible and beyond the reach of chance or change, into the forefront of the family of nations. It has become a great naval and military Power, with a splendid record of stubborn and disciplined heroism, and is to-day, in all its other aspects and relations, in close and vital touch with the currents and movements of our modern life.
    I cannot recall the name of any ruler in history within the limits of whose single reign progress so vast and so much needed both to his own subjects and to mankind has been attained. But, Sir, while we join in the general tribute of the whole civilised word to this supreme and perhaps unexampled achievement, we may be permitted to add a special acknowledgement of our own. Ten years ago Japan became bound to us by a Treaty of Alliance. Twice since then that alliance has been renewed and extended, and, after a testing experience, it rests to-day upon a firm, and, as I hope and believe, upon an enduring foundation. It is an alliance not for aggression or provocation, but for defence of common interests, for the development of humane ideals, and, above all, for the safeguarding and preservation of peace. Sir, we, in this House of Commons, tender to our Allies and friends in the Far East, an assurance of our profound sympathy with them in their bereavement, find beg them to believe that we honour with them the imperishable memory of the great Ruler whom they have lost.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I rise to second the Motion which has just been proposed by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has referred in striking and eloquent language to the great changes in the position of Japan which have occurred during the lifetime and under the inspiration of the late Emperor. Those changes—changes emphasised by victories in peace, scarce less renowned than those in war—have been deep and great, but in one respect, in the devotion of the Japanese people to the person of their Sovereign, there has been no change. In the case of the predecessors of the late Emperor that devotion, as the Prime Minister has indicated, was in the nature of a religion, and it was nourished in mystery, for they lived their lives behind

    2087
    a veil which for centuries was never broken. The late Emperor tore down the barriers which separated him from the life of his countrymen, and the Japanese people to-day are mourning the loss, not only of the representative of the oldest dynasty in the world, but of a man who has devoted his life to the service of his country. As the ally of Japan, under an alliance formed by one Government and carried further by another, an alliance which in troublous times has done much to secure the peace of the East, we share in the loss, and we sympathise with the grief of the Japanese people.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, nemine contradicente, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to convey to His Majesty the expression of the deep regret with which this House has learned the news of the death of His Majesty's ally and friend the Emperor of Japan, and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty, the present Emperor, the profound sympathy of this House with the Imperial Family and with the Government and people of Japan."—[The Prime Minister.]
    To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on Report of Navy and Army Expenditure, 1910–11, on Report of Ways and Means, on the Light Railways Bill, and on Public Works Loans [Remission], Committee be not interrupted this evening under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I oppose this Motion in so far as it proposes to take the Light Railways Bill after 11 o'clock at night. That measure is of the most important character, and many of its proposals are highly controversial. The Government have put down on the Paper an Amendment proposing to incorporate in the Bill a provision which was debated in this House a few weeks ago and unanimously rejected. I do not think it is at all proper that a Bill of this important character should be taken at a time when a con-
    2088
    siderable number of Members interested in it are not able to be present. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will give us an assurance that the Light Railways Bill will not be taken after 11 o'clock.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that the Amendments here are agreed, and that the Bill cannot take any considerable time.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman is misinformed on that subject. One of the Amendments will be strongly opposed.
    Mr. CASSEL: Some of the Amendments are strongly opposed by some local authorities.
    The PRIME MINISTER: We certainly will not keep the House late on it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.— [22nd ALLOTTED DAY.]—REPORT.

    Class V.—Vote 1.
    Colonial Services (£1,073,754).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Resolution be postponed."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: When will this Resolution be taken?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It will be taken at the end.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    Class II.—Vote 2.
    Privy Council for Trade (£3,750).
    Resolved, "That the Resolution be postponed."—[Mr. Gwlland.]

    Class VIII.—Vote 3.
    Insurance Commission (England) (£42,500).
    Resolved, "That the Resolution be postponed."—[Mr. Gulland.]

    Class I.—Vote 4.
    Civil Services (£485,141).
    Resolved, "That the Resolution be postponed."—[Mr. Gulland.]

  Class II.

    BELFAST RIOTS.
    Resolution reported,
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,898,239 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the

    2089
    Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
    [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1912, cols. 1778-1780.]
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the Prime Minister give us some information as to the order in which the Votes are put down on the Paper to-day?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I presume the point the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise is why the Vote for the Chief Secretary is put down.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: The reason for the alteration.
    The PRIME MINISTER: There was no alteration. There was no agreement. I understand it was the wish of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the first Irish Votes to be taken should be those for the Constabulary and Education. There is no question of an agreement but of the general convenience of the House, and particularly of the Irish Members. The practice has been for several years past that those who belong to what is called the Nationalist party, the majority of the Irish Members, have been entitled to the first choice of the Votes in Supply. As a matter of fact this year on the Vote on Account the Members of the Unionist party had first call and the Labour party had first call on the Report stage. On the next occasion when Irish Votes were taken in Supply, at the request of hon. Gentlemen who represent the Unionist party, the salary of the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture was put down. Therefore, up till now hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have not had an opportunity of selecting a Vote in Irish Supply. In these circumstances we came to the conclusion, as there was a strong desire, that it would be only right and fair that the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary should be put down first to-night. In addition to the facts I have already stated I may add that special circumstances have arisen in the course of the last few days with regard to the lamentable disturbances in Belfast which I should have thought would make it in the opinion of Irish representatives in all quarters of the House desirable that some discussion should take place before we went on to other chapters of Irish Supply. These are the grounds on which the Chief Secretary's Vote is put down.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to arrange with his Nationalist Friends to have the Vote taken upon the Chief Secretary's salary as early as may be, as a great number of people from Ireland are deeply interested in Education and have come over specially to discuss it.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that is a most reasonable request.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I consider it is a request which ought to be granted at once. We are anxious that Education Questions should be discussed, and I understand so are hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, and it would be right that the discussion on the Chief Secretary's salary should be brought to a close at a reasonable hour and then we should take up the discussion of the Irish Education Vote, in which we are all interested. The Votes had better be taken in the order in which they stand. Every question connected with the constabulary can be raised on the Vote for the Chief Secretary, and if you are going to put another Vote in between the Chief Secretary and education considering that we have to close the discussion by ten o'clock, it would be quite impossible to have anything like an adequate discussion on the education question.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: In view of the fact that there has been a distinct understanding existing between the two parties that Education and the Constabulary Vote should be taken in that order, I think we might reasonably request that the two Votes should be taken to-day. It is very hard that we who represent the minority in Ireland should have our interests entirely at the dictation of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond).
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has used that expression. I was going to say we would take the Constabulary Vote immediately after the Chief Secretary. It will not take long. I am quite sure it is the wish of a large number to have the education question discussed.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I do not think I need apologise to the House for raising the matter to which I intend to address myself as one of the gravest and most urgent importance. The shocking and unparalleled atrocities which have been committed at Belfast during the last four weeks makes it absolutely essential that

    2091
    the representatives of the outraged workers should bring this matter at the earliest possible moment before the consideration of the House of Commons, For practically a whole month there has been a reign of barbarism for which there is no parallel, I think, in any civilised or uncivilised land, and when, within the last two days, we have brought this matter before the House of Commons the Chief Secretary has stated repeatedly that he had hopes that peace would soon prevail. Yesterday he repeated that hope, in which we all universally join, and yet this morning the following statement appeared in the London "Star":—
    "The reign of terror continues in Belfast, and matters have arrival at such a stage that either a Catholic or a man possessed of progressive ideas is not safe walking in the streets. Night after night the streets are paraded by Orange mobs looking for victims, and it matters little whether they are male or female, the same brutality is meted out. Last night as a Protestant, who refused to associate himself with the Unionist Club movement, was walking along Queen's Road he was attacked by a vicious crowd armed with the usual weapons, and the rough treatment to which he was subjected could not have been exceeded in any savage land. He was surrounded and knocked down by rowdies, some of whom kicked him, while others beat him with sticks, and when rescued by harbour police he presented a pitiful appearance. His face was covered with wounds from kicks, and his clothes were in ribbons. He was removed to the hospital for treatment. The man Conway, who was brutally kicked in the shipyard last week, lies in hospital in a critical condition, and the doctors have little hope of his recovery."
    What is the crime this man has committed? What is the crime that all these tortured citizens have committed? They have demanded the fundamental and elementary right to work and to live in their own country, and yet, because they have claimed to exercise that right, they are hounded down, beaten by armed bands of organised hooligans, fired at with nuts and other weapons until 2,500 of them are walking the streets of Belfast, with the exception of those who are lying beaten and bruised and some of them dying in the city hospitals. On June 15th the Opposition moved an Amendment which affirmed:—
    "That it is the duty of the Government to afford all possible protection to men who desire to work in a lawful occupation."
    The Leader of the Opposition offered this contribution to the right-to-work proposal placed before the House. He said:—
    "We, at least, will not he responsible for the conduit of a Government which does not give to every citizen what is his elementary right—the right to work, if he desires to work, at a legal occupation. I say for myself, for my colleagues who sit on this bench, and I believe for every one of my hon. Friends behind me, that whether we ever obtain office or not, we wish it to
    2092
    be clearly understood in this country that, in office or out of it, we stand for freedom to work on the part of every man who desires to work."
    It is estimated that there are over 2,000 Catholics and some 500 Protestants, representing at least 12,000 people in the city of Belfast, who are compulsorily disemployed owing to the reign of terror which exists there. They claim to work. They are ready to work. There is work for them to do and they are not permitted to work. Not only that, but within the area of their employment they are beaten and maltreated and some of them almost kicked to death, and when hundreds of them fly from their assailants at the close of the evening, those who have engaged in a hard and laborious day's occupation, they are hounded down and followed and hunted over the public roads, followed in some cases into tramcars and the tramcars have been wrecked. What is the crime they have committed? They have asked, under the Union Jack, under the flag of your Empire, to work that they may live, and that is denied to them. Their families and themselves are in a state of poverty, and some of them are almost destitute. For the first time in the history of the city of Belfast and the people whom I represent an appeal has had to be made for the necessary funds to keep women and children from dying of starvation. The House is entitled to ask what is the cause of all this. I will state the cause in the simple language of the men themselves. At a meeting of these workers held in the city the following resolutions were passed:—
    "That this meeting of workmen formerly employed in the yards of Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and Workman, Clark and Co., assembled this day to consider the situation in which they are placed, having been coerced by force of employés at the above works to abandon their jobs, unanimously resolve—'That the cause of their expulsion is the religious and political passions aroused against them amongst certain workers, chiefly through the action of Unionist Clubs recently established in those yards, that the object of the hostility referred to is the expulsion and boycott of workers holding religious and political opinions opposed by the Unionist Clubs; that they appeal to the good sense of the right-minded public for justice, and we respectfully ask employers to recognise our right to fair treatment, and to assist in giving such protection as will enable us to follow our occupations, and earn the necessary support for ourselves and families.'"
    For three weeks no protection was given to them. They were practically left to the mercy of this mob, who were incited and whose angry passions were aroused by speeches from Members of this House. I do not intend to paint a lurid picture, or even to give the House my description, or the description of a Nationalist or Liberal partisan, of the events that have taken place in that city. Let me quote

    2093
    the "Daily Telegraph," one of the leading journals in London. That journal to-day states:—
    "As there seems to be some confusion in the public mind, it may be well to state the exact situation in Belfast. Before the holiday vacation, which began on July 10th and ended on the 23rd instant, very strong political feeling was engendered in the shipyards owned by Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and Messrs. Workman, Clark and Company. This feeling resulted in the Home Rule workers in both establishments, numbering in nil about 2,500, leaving their employment, a number being assaulted, others intimidated, and others again threatened. It was thought that during the vacation the feeling would die down, and that when the date for the resumption of work came the position would be normal. Unfortunately this anticipation was not realised, the hostility becoming even more acute than before. The result was that the several hundred workers of Home Rule tendencies employed by Messrs. Workman, Clark and Company made no attempt to resume work and are still idle. According to arrangement, the 2,000 odd workers employed by Messrs. Harland and Wolff who had been out returned to the shipyard on the morning of the 23rd. At the breakfast hour on that day there were scenes of disorder outside the yard, and an hour afterwards 400 of the Cheshire Regiment, which is stationed at Belfast, and 200 officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary … were brought on the scene. … On the same day and the following days up till Friday there were disorderly scenes inside and outside the yard, and gradually the workers whose political opinions did not meet with the approval of the other 11,000 men were forced again to leave their employment, the last of them doing so on Friday night last. Thus all the arrangements made by Messrs. Harland and Wolff for the protection of their workers were futile."
    I apologise to the House for reading that lengthy excerpt from the "Daily Telegraph," but I think that, so far as possible, it is really an impartial description of the state of things that existed, and of the causes which brought these things about. Now I come to the method by which these men have been driven out of employment, and the tactics which have been pursued. In his reply here yesterday the Chief Secretary gave this description:—
    "Since 2nd July there have been eighty assaults on workmen inside or in the immediate proximity of the two shipyards—twenty-five inside assaults and fifty-live outside. Of these fire were of the most dangerous character, threatening the lives of the sufferers. The worst case was that of Mr. J. McIlroy, of Harland and Wolff's, on 23rd July. Two men have been arrested for this assault, and one or two others will probably be connected with it. In nineteen other cases of these assaults the assailants are believed to have been identified, and proceedings are pending; but, owing to the blackened faces of the workmen, identification is more than usually difficult."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1912, col. 1867.]
    Let me now come to the "Morning Post." Writing on 4th July, the correspondent of that journal said:—
    "Inquiries made this afternoon show that the great majority of Nationalist workmen employed in the shipyard of Messrs. Workman, Clark and Co., Limited, who left their employment on Tuesday as the result of threats, did not resume work to-day. It is not expected that these men will now return to the shipyard until after the holiday vacation, which ends on the 17th inst. … In Messrs. Harland and Wolff's shipyard the
    2094
    feeling is also very acute. A number of joiners belonging to the South of Ireland who have been employed in the yard for some time past received so many threats of violence yesterday and to-day that they demanded the wages due to them this evening and left for Dublin. A couple of Nationalists engaged in the engineering shed of Messrs. Harland and Wolff were also assaulted while leaving their work this evening."
    On 5th July the "Daily Telegraph," describing the character of the scenes in these shipyards, said:—
    "In both shipyards there were a number of disorderly scenes during the breakfast hour. Several of the Nationalist workers in Messrs. Harland and Wolff's yard were assaulted. One of them escaped by jumping into the dock and swimming about fifty yards to a jetty on the opposite side. A second ran into one of the workshops and appealed for help to the foreman, who attempted to assist him and was knocked down and kicked for his pains. So serious did the situation become that the Nationalist workers in Harland and Wolff's engineering and boiler shop were advised to go home, which they did at noon. It was fortunate that they did so, for at the dinner hour a body of Protestant workmen, numbering about 500, forced the iron gates at the entrance to the engineering shops. A few minutes later the cry was raised that there were several Nationalist workers on board the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company's vessel "Darro." which was launched ten days ago, and several hundred young men rushed up the gangway. They found three Nationalists, who, after a scuffle, escaped by slipping down a rope at the end of the vessel and into a small boat, which they rowed away."
    Messrs. Harland and Wolff then threatened to close the works. There are one or two other cases where particulars are given by the men themselves:—
    "M. Conway, of 19, Sherwood Street, who was beaten by a mob at the Queen's Island yesterday, lies in the Royal Victoria Hospital, suffering from internal injuries. At one o'clock this morning he had not regained consciousness. F. J. M'Cullough, Toxton Street, is under treatment in the Mater Infirmorum Hospital for scalp wound, caused by a rivet. William Barr, Peel Street, is in the Mater Infirmorum Hospital, suffering from injuries to the eye and jaw, caused by kicks. E. Delahunt, beaten on Thursday, is still in a very serious condition—shock, broken ribs, and contusions. The ambulance which conveyed Delahunt to the hospital was attacked with stones. A glass panel bearing the civic arms of Belfast was smashed in and had to be hastily replaced with a pane of frosted glass. Many men have been attacked and badly abused in holes and corners of the shipyards and vicinity. Their cases cannot be traced."
    The experiences on Queen's Island of one man is described in these words:—
    "One unfortunate was stripped naked and borne to the open raging furnace, held over it whilst his hair singed in the awful heat, and was only saved from instant incineration by the action of four manly fellows, armed with sledge-hammers, who vowed with grim determination to smash like egg-shells the skulls of the miscreants. The next hour a Catholic was taken prisoner by four other ruffians, his arms pinioned to his sides, and his head battered by the blows given by the four. A fifth now came up and felled the victim unconscious by the blow of an iron bar. Madly his distressed co-religionists flocked to the gates, and in the rush escaped with their lives only."
    I do not want to extend the area of these cases, but it is also recorded in the "Morning Post" that in a felt works an unfortunate workman was thrown into a barrel of tar, from which he was rescued

    2095
    in a desperate plight. Then Messrs. Harland and Wolff decided to close their works. This is the document which was printed in the yard:—
    "Matters have now arrived at a crisis in Belfast shipyards. Owing to disturbances, the impossibility of carrying on work properly has been growing daily more obvious. In view of the brutal assaults on individual workmen and the intimidation of others, several departments in Harland and Wolff's have already been closed down, and in their utter ignorance that their own interests are affected by their folly, extremists have gone so far as to molest and intimidate specially skilled men responsible for the working of power plant. These men, assaulted and intimidated, are gradually leaving off work, and, as they cannot be replaced, we are reluctantly obliged to shut down a considerable portion of plant, which will affect a still larger portion of the works, and thus gradually the whole establishment will automatically come to a standstill."
    What was the cause of all this? How did it commence? In the first place, Messrs. Workman and Clark encouraged within their works the formation of what are known as Unionist clubs. It is, to my mind, a rather extraordinary situation of affairs in the industrial life of any community that the head of a great firm should allow his industrial concern to be turned into a drilling institution, and that the heads of each department went round among the workers asking them to join these Unionist clubs and to take part in the pantomimic performances which those who live in Belfast know to their cost. When these men refused to join the Unionist clubs they were immediately marked men. Having carried out their work in Messrs. Workman and Clark's, bands of Unionists proceeded to the premises of Messrs Harland and Wolff, with which they have no connection whatever, broke into that firm's establishment, and demanded that the men there should join the Unionist clubs. The Catholics who refused were marked men, and 500 Protestants who refused were also marked men. That is how this state of things commenced. I want to call the attention of the House of Commons to one very important feature of this matter. Now that the Unionist party have seen that the whole of England has been outraged and shocked by these barbarous performances, they are endeavouring to clear themselves of the responsibility, blame, and indelible shame, that will remain upon them for ever. In an interview to which I called the attention of the House of Commons at the time, published in a London Tory newspaper, the "Evening News," a leading shipbuilder in Belfast is reported to have said:—
    "There is no use disguising the fact that the yards must be cleared of every supporter of Home Rule.
    2096
    These men would only hamper us when the real work begins. He had reason to know that similar action would shortly be taken in every large industrial concern in Ulster."
    I myself had a circular in my possession in which Protestant employers were invited to dismiss their Catholic employés, and which stated that this would be a most striking, though not the most picturesque, part of this propaganda of so-called civil war which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were carrying on in England. It is the splendid policy blessed by the Duke of Norfolk. He came all the way to Blenheim to give his benediction to the policy which drives out 500 innocent and inoffensive but brave and courageous Protestant progressives, and 2,000 Catholics devoted to their country, hard working citizens, law abiding men, who have never given offence to anybody. This was the policy which the Duke of Norfolk, the great Catholic Duke, came to bless at Blenheim. But however much this House may be shocked at these atrocities, and however much it may be outraged at the inhumanity of these proceedings, it is but right to saddle the right men with the responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) declared somewhere or other, I think at a Primrose meeting, that he was going over to Ireland to break every law. He is an academic anarchist. We never witness his violence in Ireland. The only law that is broken is not the law broken by the ex-Solicitor-General for England, but by his wretched dupes in the city of Belfast. Why, if the law was to be broken, did the right hon. Gentleman not go over and throw the rivets? Why, if the law was to be broken, did the right hon. Gentleman not hold the wretched victim over the furnace? Why, if the law is to be broken, does the right hon. Gentleman not go and do it, and assume full responsibility for his action? No, he preferred to remain in England. On the day on which he was supposed to break the law he was making a speech in favour of Tariff Reform. But I pass from the right hon. Gentleman to his leader. What does he say?
    An HON. MEMBER: Lynch law.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Yes; he only meant that academically. Like his right hon. Friend he is very good at talking about lynching in the House of Commons and breaking the law, but they do not do it. They prefer to protect their own hides and to leave

    2097
    their victims to the mercy of the public authorities.
    "We shall use every means,"
    he said,
    "whatever means seem to us likely to be most effective. I say now with a full sense of the responsibility which attaches to my position—"
    there never was a position which is more degraded—
    "that if the attempt be made under present conditions. I can imagine no length of resistance to which Ulster will go which I shall not be ready to support."
    These series of incidents had gone on for nearly a fortnight when he made that speech. When he attended the saturnalia at Blenheim it was a great opportunity for him to dissociate himself, if this was not a part of his policy, from these hideous transactions; but he stood up while the passions of Belfast were let loose, while men were being beaten and assaulted, and kicked almost to death; he stood up in the presence of the mighty Catholic Duke of England, and announced that there was no length to which they might go that he was not prepared to defend; and thus he bears a full share of the responsibility for what has happened. The right hon. Gentleman has missed his mark. I have a limited acquaintance with England, but I know sufficient of it to believe that the courage of the English people and their sense of justice will prevent them from allowing a continuance of that policy described as potential civil war. There was one other incident, the most disgraceful, I think, that the oldest member of this House of Commons has ever experienced. When some time ago an hon. Member raised the question of what was going on in Belfast, I ventured in following him to describe the brutal assault on the Catholic and Protestant working men, and my announcement was received with loud cheers and laughter from the benches above the Gangway. The actors were on the Queer's Island in Belfast. Here were the audience. When hon. Members sat in the theatre and cheered them in the policy which they pursued, and jeered at the infamies that were inflicted on our people, is it any wonder that the followers of hon. Members in Belfast have pursued the course which they have done?
    Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSON: You cheered the Boers.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I did not cheer the Boers. I was not here at the time of the Boer war; but if I had cheered the Boers I would have cheered brave and
    2098
    courageous men. They were not posturing warriors like hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway; they were men who displayed superb courage, whether one agrees with them or disagrees with them, in fighting for what they believed to be right. There is not a Boer in South Africa who would not hang his head for shame at such transactions as have taken place in Belfast. But I do not rise here for the purpose of exposing these atrocities alone in the interests of the people whom I defend. I rise in the interests of the great city which I have the honour to represent. There is not one of these civil warriors who belongs to Belfast. One is an ex-Canadian Scotchman; the other comes from somewhere in the West of Ireland; the rest are Englishmen. What have they got to do with Belfast? They could not point out to me a single citizen of Belfast, be his position high or humble, who has spoken throughout all these controversies, who has declared for civil war. There have been far more speakers holding big stakes in the city of Belfast in favour of Home Rule than there have been speakers against it. That is an undeniable fact. They do not want to ruin Ireland; they cannot ruin Ireland; but they want to ruin Belfast; for I can conceive no other possible result that can come in consequence of the activities of these gentlemen than the ruin of that great city, whose commercial and industrial greatness was built up as much by the blood and struggles of labour of the humble toilers as by the money of the wealthiest capitalists. They may go on with their policy, but there never will be civil war. Nobody believes it. They do not believe it themselves. The people would not engage in it. You cannot carry on a battle led by lawyers without an army; you cannot even get a battle led by a captain without an army. The only thing you would have would be a rather shabby commissariat and a few played out statesmen here in England. But you cannot, and I am convinced of it, get the people to engage in civil war. This is all a well-organised, carefully planned, scheme of conspiracy. There is nothing very picturesque about it. The only result, if it goes on in Harland and Wolff's firm, will be that Harland and Wolff will close up their works and 14,000 men will be thrown out of employment. That means 70,000 citizens left at the mercy of these Gentlemen's valorous caprices. And such a result will eat its way into every

    2099
    branch of commerce and industry in the city, and the ruin which has been caused will fall on the city's shopkeepers and manufacturers, and all who depend on the people who are, after all, the cause of all their greatness and prosperity. It will bring ruin to Belfast, and to Belfast alone, and therefore, I say, that apart altogether from the cruelties that have been perpetrated, and the outrages that have been committed against these people, there never was a more dastardly act committed against a great community than that which has inspired these scenes of disorder, and these outrageous attacks upon inoffensive people, and I trust that the House of Commons will record its judgment upon what has taken place.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Owing to the fact that until yesterday I and all my colleagues were under the impression that we were going to be engaged to-day on the unpretentious business of Irish education, I personally have not come into the House prepared to speak at any length upon this subject, because I did not know until this morning at eleven o'clock, when I saw the "Times" newspaper, that the arrangements of the House with regard to the business of the day had been altered. Before I proceed to criticise the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I desire to enter my very strong protest against the course that has been taken by the Government in this matter. It is only one more instance of surrender on the part of the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister to their lords and masters below the Gangway. It was absolutely understood, and in the Whips sent out to both sides of the House it was stated that Irish education and policy would be the business before the House to-day. Why has this been changed at the last moment? Simply because hon. Members below the Gangway thought that they had a good opportunity of maligning Unionists. There was no other reason in the world. They saw their opportunity. The hon. Member who has just sat down, who preaches at times his great love for Ireland and his fellow-countrymen, could not resist the opportunity which he thought he had, in the unfortunate episode in Belfast, of throwing dirt on Irish Protestants and Irish Unionists, and on the city of which he pretends to bi so fond. I am going to endeavour to hold myself in hand. I am certain that I am speaking for all my colleagues who
    2100
    come from Ireland, and from other parts of the country, when I say that I regret these disturbances in Belfast. I hear ironical cheers from hon. Members below the Gangway.
    An HON. MEMBER: You did not express regret at Blenheim on Saturday.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: But while I regret these occurrences I must confess that as far as I am concerned I long ago foresaw that during the two years when Home Rule was before this House and was being discussed in the country, unfortunate incidents would be certain to arise in some parts of Ireland, and therefore, though I regret them very much, I am not surprised to the extent to which the hon. Member below the Gangway pretends to be at what has happened in Belfast. The hon. Member very pertinently asked the House to consider what were the causes of these unfortunate riots in Belfast. He gave one explanation of the outbreak of these disturbances, and I will trouble the House with a few others. I would ask the House to remember the insults and provocations that were given. Hon. Members opposite do not know and cannot know the extraordinary provocation with which Unionists are treated at the present time in the North of Ireland. The Nationalists in Belfast and elsewhere are resorting to every means in their power against my Protestant fellow Unionists in the North of Ireland. They tell us that our time is short; that Home Rule is going to come in the course of a couple of years, and that we will be wiped out. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes; they told us a few weeks ago in regard to the 12th of July that we had better make the most of that day, as we would only be allowed to celebrate one more. I can assure hon. Members who laugh that that is not the sort of conciliatory language that I would advise, in the present explosive condition of affairs, to be used to my Orange brethren in the North of Ireland. Let me remind the House that until the 12th of July there were no disturbances or outrages of any sort for which the Protestants could be in any way held responsible. On the contrary, the 12th of July in Belfast passed over, in spite of very considerable provocation which had been received two days previously, without any arrests having been made, or without any of those disturbances to distinguish that 12th of July from similar celebrations in

    2101
    previous years. There have been no complaints of any sort or description with reference to the conduct of Orangemen or Protestants in Belfast on that day, and it was not until some time after that these disturbances began. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am wrong there. What happened is this—I cannot for the moment remember the exact date—there was the well-known outrage on school children at Castledawson. One of the boys in that disgraceful attack on school children, and who was injured, was a boy in the employment of Messrs. Workman and Clark, and his father was also employed by that firm.
    Mr. KEATING: What was the name?
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I cannot give the name for the moment.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Will the hon. Gentleman give me the name?
    Mr. CRAIG: I shall endeavour to ascertain it. The boy was in the employment of Messrs. Workman and Clark, and his return to work naturally caused great ill-feeling amongst the Protestants in that yard; and there were, I believe, at that time, some slight outbursts of passion among the Protestants in that yard. I am perfectly right in saying that the bulk of these so-called outrages—[HON. MEMBERS: "So-called?"]—As a matter of fact, what has caused this rioting in Belfast? The cause of this rioting in Belfast is due to a conglomeration of circumstances—Hon. Members below the Gangway laugh. Probably they have never heard of the word "conglomeration"—which I will endeavour to explain to the House. The first most important and most direct cause of the disturbances which have taken place—and others will perhaps take place during the next two years—is the fact that the party opposite is endeavouring to force upon Ulster a Home Rule Bill, which she will not accept. That is at the bottom of all the trouble, and, as everybody knows, that is a self-evident proposition. At the bottom of all this trouble is the fact that the Government are going to try to force on the North of Ireland a Home Rule Bill which Unionists have declared a hundred times they will not have. When that disgraceful attack on that Sunday-school excursion which took place on 29th June at Castledawson, I am sorry to say it became a moral certainty that there would be reprisals within a very short time.
    2102
    Not only did the Hibernians attack a party of Sunday-school children at Castledawson, but there have been two similar cases of wanton attack in connection with school treats within the last month. One happened at Innisrush. A party of inoffensive women, coming back from a day's outing at ten o'clock at night, passed through Whitehouse, after a long and tiring day, and anxious to get back to their homes, and they were stoned by a crowd of men standing in the streets. I do not want it to be thought that I am in any way glad that these things have happened, but I do want to say that it is past all endurance to expect people to stand that kind of conduct when they are in a condition of excitement, as they are at the present time, and have been for the last year, over the Homo Rule controversy. Let me add to what I have already said about Castledawson, that nothing could be more calculated to exacerbate the feeling of Protestants in the North of Ireland than the way in which the Chief Secretary has treated that affair. He did not call it a dastardly and cowardly outrage, but talked about it as a mere riot. That shows the difference between the way in which the right hon. Gentleman treats his Friends below the Gangway and the way he treats his Protestant fellow countrymen. At any rate, the House must remember that the right hon. Gentleman is Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which capacity he is supposed to hold the balance of justice absolutely equally between man and man. I say that he has never done that from the day he first entered Ireland. I say that his whole conduct in connection with the Castledawson disturbance proves it.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member must know that the Castledawson affair is at present the subject-matter of inquiry. Has he read the evidence of this transaction?
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I have read every word about it. It is not at the present time the subject of judicial investigation in any shape or form. It is true that certain members who took part in the Castledawson affair are on their trial for rioting; but that is a very different thing from saying that a judicial investigation has been held into what caused the attack. The right hon. Gentleman himself must have known when he made the statement that there was the possibility of a few arrests of people who would be tried in this matter,

    2103
    and he said himself that he would grant the fullest inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the case.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I asked for it,
    Mr. C. CRAIG: The hon. Member asked for it, but he did not do so before he knew the facts.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I asked for it in the House of Commons.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I say that the hon. Member did not do so before he knew the true facts of the case. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman absolutely and spontaneously, and without being asked by us, said he would grant the fullest inquiry. A few days later, when he ascertained that the entire blame for the occurrence rested on the Order of Hibernians, he withdrew from that offer to allow investigation, and he has since refused anything of the kind. These are the facts. I say his treatment of that case has done a great deal to excite the worst passions of the Protestants in the North of Ireland. They see, at the time they are threatened with Home Rule, that they are not considered entitled to the commonest justice from the Chief Secretary. Even after having promised a full inquiry into the matter, when told by his hon. Friends below the Gangway that it would be inconvenient to have an inquiry, or from some other equally high motive, the right hon. Gentleman withdrew his promise, and he refuses to allow us an investigation into that affair. At any rate, that is not the kind of conduct which is likely to make the Protestants in the North of Ireland more moderate in their action and temper There has not been one action on the part of Protestants or Unionists in Ireland that has not been preceded by some action of the Nationalists themselves, so that, if this unfortunate state of affairs does exist—I do not think it is nearly as bad as the hon. Member stated—it is due entirely to the causes I have named, and not to the causes which the hon. Member for West Belfast has thought fit to state to the House. Did anybody ever hear anything so ridiculous as the description given by the hon. Member of these disturbances? He talked about these attacks on Roman Catholics, which I quite admit are a very serious feature of the case, and which I would much rather had not happened: I disassociate myself from them, but the hon. Member tried to make out that we are
    2104
    responsible for them, and I desire to make it clear to the House that we are not. The hon. Member spoke of the "most shocking and unparalleled atrocities ever heard of," and "a reign of barbarism without parallel in the history of the world." That language is grossly exaggerated, though I admit we have had riots in Belfast infinitely worse, unfortunately, than anything to which the hon. Member has referred.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Not as brutal or as cowardly.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: I am not going into an examination of the various circumstances. Hon. Friends of mine who know the facts better than I do will deal with them later on. I am told on good authority that the attempt to roast a man in front of a furnace fire is an absolute fabrication, and I have no doubt that other alleged facts of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke are equally exaggerated.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I read them from Unionist newspapers.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: That does not make them true. The hon. Member might as well say that he believes everything he sees in the "Freeman's Journal." The hon. Member made some remarks with reference to Unionist clubs that have been started in Messrs. Workman and Clark's yard. He informed us that it was a strange thing that a great industrial concern should lend itself to setting up political clubs amongst its own employés. I do not suppose the hon. Member really thinks there is anything extraordinary in that. I have no doubt that on his own side it is quite a common thing. In any case I should like to tell the House that that is what is being done all over the North of Ireland. These Unionist clubs have been and are being formed for the express purpose of resisting Home Rule, and they exist everywhere in industrial concerns just as outside. Harland and Wolff, the firm which has been so frequently referred to, also have their Unionist clubs, and in fact Unionist clubs exist all over Ireland, or all over the North of Ireland; and, indeed, I may say to the hon. Member behind that I was perfectly right in saying that they exist all over Ireland—North, South, East and West. My point is that there is nothing extraordinary in having a Unionist club in Workman and Clark's because the

    2105
    masters and men are absolutely at one on this subject of Home Rule, and they are naturally doing everything in their power, either in their works or out of their works, to form and to band themselves into associations for the purpose of resisting Home Rule, so that there is nothing extraordinary in that. The hon. Member talked about proceedings of these clubs as if they were a pantomimic performance.
    Mr. DEVLIN: It is murder.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: The hon. Member calls murder a pantomimic performance. That is characteristic of the hon. Member and the party he is associated with. The hon. Member referred again to that statement, and I am surprised that he had the temerity to bring it forward in the House, namely, the statement made by the London "Evening News" about an interview with what was called "a leading Belfast shipbuilder." The House will remember he brought that forward once before here, and had to retract some of his statements about that alleged interview of the "Evening News." What weight is the House of Commons to put on an interview in a London paper? [An HON. MEMBER: "A Tory paper."] A Tory paper it may be, but an interview with a person whose identity we do not know, and whom the editor or the giver covers with the name of a leading Belfast shipbuilder! It is absurd. He might be a draughtsman in Harland and Wolff's, or a manager, or anything else. We can put no reliance on statements of this sort, and, therefore, I think the House should entirely disregard the statement which was read out by the hon. Member. Belfast will get over this. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is very slow."] These disturbances in Belfast will, I am sure, cease. We all regret they have taken place. We all regret most sincerely they have taken place. I will say this, and I will speak perfectly frankly and I hope this will not be taken by anybody here or in the North of Ireland as a threat, as a piece of advice to the Nationalists in the North of Ireland, and in Belfast in particular, if they wish to live on terms of peace and harmony with their Protestant fellow countrymen at the present time, then they must cease from goading them on to action as they have been doing. It can be shown, and I submit I have shown it myself and I am sure my hon. Friend will only press home what I have said, that on every occasion that there has been an outbreak on the part of Protestants that has been the direct result of some inde-
    2106
    fensible outrage or attack on the part of the Nationalists.
    The introduction of the military into the city of Belfast is a strange comment on the action of the Government on this side of the water. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches have been objecting to the use of the police, and strenuously objecting to the use of the military in these matters; but in Belfast, where there are Unionists, works and a few friends of the hon. Members below the Gangway to be guarded, you have regiments of soldiers poured into the city when there is not the slightest need for them. The fact remains that day after day, after waiting wearily doing nothing those troops which have been sent to Harland and Wolff's have had to be withdrawn. It is true that there has been a certain amount of throwing of stones and so on. Contrast the position with what has been done in London. Why were regiments not sent down to the docks in London? Why is it that you have not only troops in Belfast, but one or two or three battalions?
    Mr. BARNES: The strikers did not use rivets.
    Mr. C. CRAIG: If the hon. Member's head is going to be smashed open does it matter much to him whether it is done with a big stick or a rivet? I have no doubt that the strikers would have used rivets if they had them, but they had not got them. I think there is no point in the hon. Member's remark. In spite of the fact that we have an ample garrison the right hon. Gentleman must introduce new troops from Mullingar and elsewhere. He has now got three or four or five thousand there and why they have been sent to Belfast I do not know. They have never used, I believe, more than about three or four hundred at a time. On each occasion those men have been solemnly marched down to Harland and Wolff's, and they have equally solemnly been brought back, having done nothing but stand there with their arms all the time. I ask the House to contrast the different treatment which is meted out to us in Belfast to what is meted out to the friends of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite in the case of a strike in this country. I do not suppose there will be any Division on this subject, because so far as the hon. Member's speech was concerned I failed to gather from him what he was driving at, further than to throw contempt and contumely on my friends in Belfast. So far

    2107
    as the action of the Chief Secretary is concerned it was not criticised in the slightest degree from the beginning of his speech to the end, and therefore I should like to emphasise the fact that the hon. Member, who poses in this House as the friend of everybody in Ireland, whether they be unfortunate Unionists, Protestants, or Roman Catholics, has done nothing this afternoon but disregarded the facts, and tried to hold us up to bad feeling and contumely and contempt before this House and the country. This is the Gentleman who on other occasions pretends that he is the only representative who comes from the North of Ireland, who really loves his own city and tries to place it before the House of Commons in its proper light. I trust that the House will not be led away by the specious statements of the hon. Member, but will regard these actions as coming from a population who are wound up to a state of tension and excitement by the acts of the Government, aided and abetted by the acts of hon. Members below the Gangway.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: I do not intend to go at any great length into the matters that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin); indeed, I am glad to see him on he side of what we would call law and order, considering the number of years he has been engaged in championing the party of intimidation, boycotting, and, to use his own phrase, barbarism in other parts of Ireland which are represented by hon. Members below the Gangway. It is, at all events, some advantage to find that when his people are in a minority they require just as much as the minority in the South and West of Ireland the protection of the law, which I assume is the object of his bringing forward this Motion at all. I think he is to be congratulated if he sees now the necessity of maintaining at times the military who have been so often abused in the coarsest language by him and his colleagues below the Gangway. I should like to know how often we have had matters of far more urgent importance before the House as regards long years of a series of acts of outrages and intimidation upon poor and innocent people through various parts of Ireland, and all the thanks we got for it was that we were called "carrion crows." I agree with what my hon. Friend behind me said that we have considerable cause of complaint that whenever we bring any of those
    2108
    matters before the House we are treated in a very different fashion by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I am not going to follow the hon. Member for West Belfast in his attacks upon myself. I care nothing about them. They will not influence me one hair's-breadth in anything I either say or do.
    I should like to say at the very outset that I have never countenanced, and never will countenance, any such action as has taken place in Belfast in the shipyards. I think it is lamentable, and I am not saying that because we are arraigned in this House. I took the trouble to publish before the 12th July, when these matters were commenced, a letter in the papers in the North of Ireland, saying that nothing was to be more deprecated, and I say it now, than these spasmodic and sporadic rows from time to time, in which one party on one side assailed their opponents, and which could lead to no result of any kind except disaster to the various parties who are concerned. I have said that over and over again in Belfast. I said it the last time I was over there. As I said a moment ago, I said it in a public letter on 11th July in the hopes that any influence I possessed might be used towards preventing breaches of the peace upon the Twelfth. When the hon. Member quotes speeches of mine he knows perfectly well what I directed my attention to in those speeches is of an entirely different nature, and is always limited to the perfecting of such organisation as those people may think proper, and such as may be effective in the resistance to Home Rule, which I hope at the proper time they will be able to carry out with full effect. I hope the House will not be led to take an exaggerated view of what has taken place. Nothing, I think, could be worse than an exaggeration of what has taken place with a view to future peace, and you might well cause greater disturbances by over-stating the case as to what has actually taken place. Above all I warn the House against accepting any statement of the hon. Member for West Belfast. He has such a vivid imagination and such eloquence, I am free to admit, that with his imagination and his eloquence he is apt to give the House as statements of facts what are pure statements of fiction.
    Mr. DEVLIN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the only facts stated by me were statements contained in Unionist newspapers.
    Sir E. CARSON: No, that is not so as I will show the hon. Gentleman in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has stated that the origin of these disturbances in the shipyards was by reason of the organisation of the clubs in Workman and Clark's. He stated on a previous occasion that Mr. George Clark, who had been a Member of this House and was a member of the firm in question, had himself got up some of these rows, and that he had encouraged his men to walk over from their yard and interfere with the men at Harland and Wolff's. Both those statements were absolutely false. I have here in my hand a telegram, which I understand has been sent to the Chief Secretary also, in which Mr. George Clark says:—
    "Noticing that a statement has been made by Mr. Devlin that the trouble in Harland and Wolff's yard has been caused by attacks organised in our yard by our men on the men in Harland and Wolff's yard, I have made the fullest inquiry and can give this statement the most complete denial."
    Yesterday a member on the Labour Benches made a statement, which has been repeated this afternoon by the hon. Member for West Belfast, to the effect that a foreman took books to the benches of the men and asked them if they were prepared to join Orange clubs, and that every man who did not sign was marked down for ill-treatment. I have in the same wire from Mr. George Clark the statement that that also is absolutely untrue. Therefore I ask the House not to take statements reflecting upon the character of these men merely upon the ipse dixit of the hon. Member for West Belfast. As regards individual cases in which attacks have been made upon men, I have already said that as far as I am concerned I have always disapproved and always will disapprove, of them, whether they are by one man or by a crowd. I perfectly agree with what has been said, but which has not been so readily accepted in other circumstances, either by Members on the other side or by Members below the Gangway, that every man, whatever his position, whether he is a member of a union or a member of a club, an Orangeman or a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, has a perfect right to have the whole force of the country at his back to enable him to work. I have never said anything else. The speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast would lead one to imagine that I and those who are associated with me were in some way or another cognisant of or implicated in the transactions which have occurred in Belfast. Nothing could
    2110
    be more absolutely untrue. Nothing could be more absolutely inconsistent with all my own conduct in relation to this agitation in the North of Ireland since I have been chairman of the Irish Unionist party.
    But while deprecating these occurrences let us look at the true causes. For many years, almost since 1886, when there were serious riots, as far as political matters are concerned, I doubt if there has been any serious collision whatsoever in Belfast or in other parts of the North of Ireland. But one cannot leave out of account the passionate feeling that has been raised by the introduction of the Home Rule Bill. It may be right or it may be wrong, but it cannot be denied that the introduction of the Home Rule Bill, and especially the statements as regards Ulster which have been made on the benches opposite, and the contumely constantly poured upon these men because they are asserting what they have a perfect right to assert, namely, their objection and resistance to the policy of Home Rule, have aroused feelings of deep passion which bring back historic memories which, unfortunately, are never forgotten in these places, and which render men very liable on provocation to deal in a manner very much to be regretted with those who are opposed to them. You have to start with that, and it is not fair to these men not to start with it. But when you have, as happened upon 29th June, a number of Protestant school children grossly and savagely attacked by a body of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, over whom the hon. Member for West Belfast presides, you cannot but expect that there will be reprisals.
    Mr. DEVLIN: It is absolutely untrue.
    Sir E. CARSON: The Member for West Belfast talks very much about our lack of courage. Was he proud of the Ancient Order of Hibernians' attack upon these school children?
    Mr. DEVLIN: No such thing took place.
    Sir E. CARSON: I was present in this House when that matter was brought forward, long before the present disturbances had arisen, and so far from there being any denunciation of this attack, there was an attempt at justification, and the whole story as regards these children—I suppose because they were children, and because it was put forward from these benches—was received by hon. Members below the Gangway, and, I am sorry to say, by hon. Members opposite, with jeers

    2111
    and laughter. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "It is a falsehood."] It -was received with jeers and laughter, and I could not help thinking at the time how little those who laughed knew what might be the outcome of such a state of things, having regard to the deep feeling existing in the North of Ireland. I am not going to deal further with this matter. My main object in speaking at all was to show that gross misstatements had been made as regards the origin of these disturbances, and to state, what I have already stated in Belfast and in the newspapers, that these attacks, whether upon one side or upon the other, are to be deeply deprecated, and, even to put it on the very lowest grounds, do not and cannot further anything in the nature of a political cause. As far as I am concerned, I earnestly hope that peace may be restored in the shipyards, and that there may be no further ground of complaint on the one side or the other.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I was very glad indeed to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which I am sure reflects the opinion of everybody in the House. Outrages or assaults in the shipyards, having the result of driving from their work many thousands of Roman Catholics and a good many hundreds of Protestants associated with them in political opinion or thought, are to be deprecated by all. I do not doubt that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. C. Craig), who preceded the right hon. Gentleman, although his language perhaps was not as happy as it might have been, himself deeply deplores and regrets occurrences of this sort. Owing to the office that I occupy, I have a great sense of responsibility in matters of this kind. I am responsible, and I recognise the responsibility to the full, for maintaining the peace and order of the great city of Belfast, and that can only be done by preserving between Catholics and Protestants, Home Rulers and Unionists, a recognition of the fact that, whilst they are carrying out their lawful employments, scenes and outrages of this kind, with the lamentable consequences that ensue, must be put down by every force both of law, and, what is of far more importance, of the public opinion of that great community itself. As to the facts, there is no dispute, as I gather from the character of the Debate, in which my responsibility has really hardly been called
    2112
    in question; and I have nothing particularly to say more than I have already said in reply to questions. No hon. or right hon. Gentlemen has said a word to dispute the case which has been made, namely, that from 2nd July down to the present day outrages of a terrible character have been committed in these shipyards and in the streets. I do not want, particularly as the facts have not been challenged, to read the police reports as to the nature of the outrages. I derive all my information from the police. Some people are not satisfied with that source of information. They think that the police do not always put as much unction and rhetoric into their reports as horrors of this kind demand. I can only say, on behalf of the Belfast police, that they have reported to me every one of these occurrences, so far as they have come to their knowledge, and I have before me documents showing eight or nine outrages committed upon harmless and innocent workmen wholly unable to defend themselves, without provocation, not persons engaged in heated political argument, but men calmly and quietly working in retired and solitary places in these great shipyards, who were set upon and horribly assaulted. In some cases, I am sorry to say, even when the victims were taken out of the yard into Queen's Road, they have there been pursued, and whilst in a state of exhaustion, some indeed in serious danger of their lives, the attacks upon them have been renewed. The result has been that a very large number of Roman Catholic workmen in Harland and Wolff's yard, and a considerable number, I cannot say how many, of Protestant workmen—strong Trades Unionists it may be, or Progressives, I do not know by what other fine names they are called, but honest men, employed in the work for the value of the work which they gave—have been compelled to cease work, not from cowardice, but through advice given by friendly workmen on the other side, that their lives would not be safe if they continued to present themselves for the purpose of pursuing their daily work and earning their living. Can you wonder that 1,500 of them, possibly more, are at this moment idle, deprived of their weekly wages, dependent it may be upon their trade union or other friendly society, only waiting for the time when they can resume their work and honestly earn a living for themselves and their families?
    Such a number of men, with all their dependents and sympathisers, in a great

    2113
    city like Belfast, are in a situation of the utmost danger. It is one which may well give many a sleepless hour to those who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order. That is the condition of things which exists in Belfast at present. It is no good asking who began it. I do not want to go into the question of who began it—of all questions the most foolish—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and to attribute these occurrences to the Castledawson incident is, I think, to attribute them to a cause which even hon. Members themselves cannot seriously believe; because one of them—or it was said in this Debate—said that these occurrences in Harland and Wolff's, and Workman and Clark's did not come to them with any surprise. It was what they expected; even what they looked for. Put the strong, the deep, feeling, if you like, down to Home Rule; that is a far more likely interpretation than to put the matter down to the incident of Castledawson.
    As to that incident, my lips are tied. Hon. Members on both sides have advantages of which they avail themselves, and great freedom, which I have not. This matter has been receiving and is receiving the most careful judicial investigation. When I spoke of the necessity of its being inquired into I had in my mind that the best form of inquiry was an inquiry in a Court of Law. I so stated to the House. I received, I thought, the assent of the hon. and learned Members who represent Dublin University. I thought, these Gentlemen being lawyers, as I also in my humble way was once a lawyer, that we both attached more importance to what comes out in a Court of Law than from what are called sworn inquiries. Therefore I had nothing more in my mind than the best kind of inquiry—that made in a Court of Law. That inquiry has been held to this extent, that a number of persons on both sides, the Hibernians—if you like so to call them—and the Unionists if you like so to call them—have been returned for trial, and will take their trial in a Court of Law. All I can say is—and I can say no more—to the hon. and learned Gentleman who told us in his speech that he had read very carefully a full account of what had taken place before the magistrate who returned these persons for trial, that I have also read the account. I can say that I did not read one single word in which it was stated that any injury was done to a woman or a child. I read Mr. Barron's evidence; I have had correspon-
    2114
    dence with him. He has never supplied any evidence whatever or named any woman or child who received any injury on that most lamentable and scandalous occasion. When you talk about the blood of honest men in Harland and Wolff's boiling with indignation so that they rush upon a man, break his jaw, kick him nearly to death, all the while because they were thinking of the terrible attack by a number of angry Hibernians upon poor defenceless persons, that, I say, I believe is a complete delusion.
    I shall watch with great curiosity and interest to see whether, when the trial proceeds, any evidence is brought forward in addition to the evidence so far as to whether women and children were ill-treated. I shall be very curious to see whether anything of that sort is made good at the trial. I think it is really childish to attribute to any incident of that sort this ebullition of feeling. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman gave a far more likely and plausible reason when he said that political feeling does run very high in Belfast at the present time. These things have happened before. Looking through the archives of my office, I find minutes, memoranda, and directions given to the police at Belfast by my predecessors in office who were even more jaded, more harassed, and more alarmed than I am myself at the present time. These things occurred in '57, '64, '86, and '93, and everybody who is responsible for Belfast at such times feel the occasion a very grave one, and he would be guilty of very grave negligence indeed if he did not provide himself with a proper force, both of police and of military, to prevent the flame extending, and consequent heavy loss of life. So far there has been no loss of life. The lives of three men have been hanging in the balance for a considerable time, but I am glad to believe that this affair may pass over without the loss of a single life. It has occasioned an enormous amount of pain, suffering, and discomfort to a large number of persons, and it has completely disorganised the greatest industry in Belfast. It has threatened Harland and Wolff's shipyard with a complete stoppage by necessitating the closing of power to a considerable extent in several of the departments. Harland and Wolff cannot get on without these men.
    Belfast generally cannot get on without its Roman Catholic population and its Protestants who sympathise and agree with them. The best

    2115
    interests will be destroyed if peace cannot be maintained. It may be very true that political feelings and political differences run high. Responsibility rests upon everybody in this House. I am glad that this House to-day to some extent recognised it, and have set their faces—like I have—against cruel and abominable tyranny of this sort. It is perfectly plain, and I shall make it perfectly plain that every thing that the forces of law and the forces of the Crown can do will be done to protect these men. It is a difficult task. I do not know that on this particular occasion I have been arraigned for the badness of the arrangements. I do not wish particularly to go into that. You have 15,000 or 16,000 men working in one great shipyard and 5,000 or 6,000 more working in two other shipyards. One of these shipyards is on the other side of the river, but the great body of these men work side by side. They all turn out after their work into one road. This road is solitary except when it is crammed with a seething mass of humanity going into their work, or coming out for their dinner, or coming home again at the close of their day's work. These yards are private property, and the police have no right in them except when they believe a felony is about to be committed. They are entrusted to a body of the harbour police, a highly-respectable body of men, against whom I have no wish to say a single word; men armed with staffs, and receiving such obedience as the men engaged in the building of ships are ready to pay to persons of the kind. It is hopeless to trust the protection of life or property to the harbour police alone.
    Then there is the Royal Irish Constabulary. That is the police force in Belfast. Belfast is, in the opinion of many people, inadequately policed even in normal times, and I am not prepared to say that is not the case. There have been, I think, forty or fifty miles of streets added to Belfast within recent years, and the ordinary task of keeping law and order over this very large and increasing area taxes the police pretty well to the last point of endurance even in normal times. When we come to times like this, and the people demand protection, the authorities are in a most difficult situation. What is to be done? I will not, so far as I have anything to do with it, send unprotected bodies of police amongst a crowd of angry men who are capable, when their passions are excited—
    2116
    I really am not disposed, in the face of difficulties of this sort, to send a force to which I have great personal attachment and which has served me many a good turn, during my administration, into such a situation without adequate protection. It would be sheer inhumanity and also folly to attempt, when there is a great riot or disturbance of this sort amongst men of this kind, to send this particular kind of policeman alone and improperly equipped for the purpose. I therefore do not quarrel with myself in the very least for having secured the reinforcement of battalions of soldiers in Belfast to assist in what is absolutely necessary to protect the few Roman Catholics who have the courage to go to these works every morning—and I trust the number will be increased day by day. That can only be done if they see that protection is being given to them. This can only be done by pickets of police and soldiers being put along Queen's Road at not very great intervals one from the other.
    Owing to the increased force both of police and soldiers which are now to be found in Belfast this can be done, and I am happy to be able to-day to say that the telegrams which I have received say that there have been seen in Queen's Road in the early morning hours Roman Catholic workmen going to their work; they leave at middle day; they go home at night, and that road presents a very satisfactory appearance of protection and force. I am glad to believe that on these assurances—though I cannot give any numbers—that it is believed Roman Catholic workmen are going back to their work. They will not go back all at once. Perhaps it is not desirable for them that they should go back, except in twos and small companies. I trust that the discussions which we have had will let light into these matters. We have been told stories in the newspapers about excitement. I speak indifferently of both Unionist papers and Radical papers, and I quite share the contempt of the hon. Member for papers of all kinds and sorts so far as they are concerned as distributers of news. I would therefore urge hon. Members to check every utterance and every announcement of the sort in the papers by a better authority. This matter has caused disgust in every breast, even in the breast of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me in Debate. I hope that what we have done will be sufficient to restore to this great industrial community that peace and concord, during business

    2117
    hours at all events, which is necessary for the maintenance of the people's lives, the welfare of their families, and the prosperity of the city of Belfast. I really do not know that my conduct has been particularly arraigned, and I hope that the arrangements that have been made for the reinforcement of the Commissioner of Police and for increasing the numbers of the police and the numbers of the soldiers will be satisfactory. In view of these better arrangements that are being made for the protection of the workmen, I trust they will have the courage to insist upon going back to their work, and that this will have good results. If so, I think that the discussions in this House, even the Debates in this House may have—which is not always the case—the very best possible results in putting an end to this industrial dispute. I could easily give further particulars, but as I have not had my conduct in any particular matter arraigned, I will confine myself to that general statement.
    6.0 P.M.
    Captain CRAIG: The Chief Secretary, who has just made his statement on behalf of the Government and the action which the Government have taken in order to maintain law and order, will, I am quite sure, be supported by every one who has the welfare of the great city of Belfast at heart. I was over there a short time ago and had the opportunity of consulting with a great many employers of labour, and also with a large number of the working classes. I may, with personal knowledge, say that a great deal of the disturbance which has taken place has taken place through, in the first instance, excitable youths, and not by the real sensible working men of Belfast. In a great many instances the excitement was started by these youths, who feel strongly on great political questions of the day. At the same time I should like to say that I happen to know, as a matter of fact, a great many of the cases reported in the London Press and the Press elsewhere are greatly exaggerated. I do not intend to say more than a few words with regard to what has fallen from the Chief Secretary. Those who have authority will help him all they can in order that these distressful outbreaks may pass away, and leave no lasting ill-feeling among any classes in Belfast. But I cannot allow the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) to go by without saying a word upon it. We, the Ulster Unionists,
    2118
    have often raised questions about intolerance and outrages in other parts of Ireland; but we have done so without any assistance from the Nationalist party. For years past the only way in which isolated Unionists in the outer parts of Ireland are able to air their grievances in this House is through a few Ulster Members. In all the cases that have arisen—firing into houses, outrages, boycotting, terrorism of all kinds practised on these isolated Unionists in different parts of Ireland—which were brought forward by us we received scant courtesy from the Chief Secretary, and we got no consolation at any time from Nationalist Members from Ireland below the Gangway. Now, although we deprecate what has occurred, and although what has occurred is easily explained, yet all the forces of His Majesty's Government are to be used in Belfast. Troops and Royal Irish Constabulary are to be brought into the city, not, be it remembered, in accordance with the Government's usual programme in such cases; not in accordance with the programme they are carrying out in the London dock strike; but for the special purpose of making it appear in the country that Belfast is the black spot at present on the map.
    I want to deal pretty frankly with this matter. Those of us who understand and know what is going on can rightly say that the hon. Member for West Belfast is deliberately trying to provoke not alone in this House, but in the city of Belfast, ill-feeling which up to a very short time ago was gradually passing away in all parts of the country. What is the hon. Member going to do on Sunday next? I have just received a telegram which I am afraid will not contribute towards peace in the city of Belfast such as the hon. Gentleman suggested he wanted, but will irritate once more the opposing classes, and keep open the wounds which he says he is anxious at the present moment to see healed. The hon. Member is actually at this time organising sports in connection with the Gaelic League championships, which are to be held on Sunday at the White Rock Road, and he himself is announced to give away the prizes. Of course, I can quite understand that sports held on a Sunday afternoon in a purely Roman Catholic part of the country would not cause any trouble at all; but in the heart of Protestant Belfast, at this particular time, I put it to the sense of this House, is it fair that the hon.

    2119
    Gentleman should choose a time when feeling is running extremely high to organise these sports in a district where there are so many Presbyterians, who, in spite of what the Chief Secretary for Ireland thinks, have their traditional feelings? And this is the time of the year that the hon. Gentleman selects to hold an exceptional display of sports at the very doors of the Presbyterians of the country. Nobody can deny that it is what perhaps some people call pin-pricks, but which I call actually provocative action on the part of the Nationalists, and which is regarded in this loyal province as provocative, that leads to trouble; and anxious as these Protestants have always proved themselves to be, and tolerant and peaceful in ordinary times as they are, it may be found that the hon. Member and his Ancient Order of Hibernians may go so far as to set alight a fire compared to which these riots and recent trouble are but a mere nothing.
    Does anyone deny for a moment that prior to the introduction of the Home Rule Bill we who were anxious to obtain a new state of feeling in Ireland predicted exactly what would happen? My object in rising is to ask the House to draw this lesson. I say deliberately no Member of our party led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College—and my right hon. Friend has asked me to explain to the Chief Secretary that he had to leave the House owing to an engagement which he was unable to put off—has had hand, act, or part in those disturbances, and that their only object was to try and smooth them over at the earliest possible moment. People talk about rebellion which will take place undoubtedly, but a row in the streets of Belfast has nothing whatever to do with the greater cause. When the Government brought forward their Home Rule Bill they were warned by those responsible, by those who know Ulster, and who know Ireland, that they could not bring forward such a Bill as this, which lowers the status of citizens in our part of the country, without immediately stirring up all the depths of passion; and yet we are asked by the Government, for two long years, to quietly behave ourselves, and then at the end what is to happen? The whole point is that the Government are asking us to do more than we can perform. You ask us to perform a task which no men in this country could perform, and our followers, who sincerely believe what
    2120
    their Members and the Liberal party tell them, are to be asked to remain quiet and peaceful while the Government and its allies are thinking out how at the end of two years, practically to cut their throats. That is an utterly impossible task.
    The hon. Member who tried to throw the blame on the Unionists in Belfast, is not on the side of conciliation as he promised he would be. He is now turning round for the purpose or resisting his leader, and he hopes by and by to oust his leader from his present position, and he is now using the Ancient Order of Hibernians to bring himself into prominence. Mention has been made of attacks upon loyalists. Do not let anyone imagine for a moment that there was only this isolated case at Castledawson to which reference has been made. I have in my hand a report of a case which, I think, never got into the newspapers, and never was brought before this House. It is a case which the Chief Secretary ought to inquire into if he desires to find how general and widespread throughout the whole of Ulster is this dread of the Home Rule Bill which leads to trouble and to turmoil. I have the document, and I will pass it over to the Chief Secretary, which shows that a body of Nationalists some 400 strong, turned out and attacked a body of the Loyal Orange Order, who were celebrating the 12th of July near Baronscourt. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the report, or whether the police made any report upon the subject. Here we have a case of a deliberately planned attack upon a meeting, in order to provoke the Orange body. Ever since 1906 I have asked questions in this House after the 12th of July celebrations, and in every instance the answer was that not a single outrage had taken place which could be ascribed to that annual celebration of our deliverance from the past. How is it that these attacks occurred at Ballybofey, Castledawson, and also at Kilrea? How is is it that all these things have occurred now. They can be ascribed, and rightly by those who know the case, as a foretaste of what is bound to come where you have highly excited people on both sides. The Ancient Order of Hibernians, as we know, under the banner of the hon. Member for West Belfast, is now an approved society under the Insurance Act. Followers of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have been in the past the disloyal party in Ireland, while our friends have tried and have proved on all occasions to be real, true

    2121
    British citizens. You have thrown off the old love and taken on with the new, God bless you! The difficulty of the situation for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is really this: I hope he will allow no pressure from any party to make him turn in any degree from the straight path of fair and square justice in the city of Belfast. I hope he will listen to no pressure from the hon. Member, or any other Nationalist as to how law and order can be maintained there. He knows where to get the best advice. Any such change, any such provocative action or challenge by him might lead to consequences that everyone in this House would regret. It is perfectly true. Over and above all that, the great danger is that a large number of Nationalists in Ireland are unable to contain themselves until the provisions of the Home Rule Bill really pass into an Act. No matter how the leaders of the Ancient Order of Hibernians or the United Irish League, or any of these other cattle-driving societies, may try to keep their members calm and quiet during the two years before the Home Rule Bill is supposed to become law, there are a large number of the rank find file who refuse to contain themselves, or wait until the Bill becomes law, and they are beginning to discount the power they will have when the Bill becomes an Act, and are taking steps now throughout the greater part of Ireland to show how they intend to use that power if ever they get Home Rule. That is where the real danger lies. These men are aware of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford's "strong-arm" speech. They remember the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, in which he said:—
    "In the day of their power they would remember those who had helped them."
    We know all those speeches in which they have used these threats, and their followers are now taking advantage of the threats made by their leaders in the past to gain an advantage before Home Rule actually becomes law. I warn the Chief Secretary in this particular. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to keep law and peace in Ireland, but if these provocative actions go very far—and the hon. Member has thrown out many challenges, and talked about those who are always here when there is anything going on—I myself personally will, if necessity arises, leave this House altogether, and take my stand among the people in Ireland, who are prepared, at all costs, to fight those
    2122
    hon. Members below the Gangway, and will say that never, with God's help, shall Ireland be governed by such a crew.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If this were simply a matter between Belfast Protestants and Catholics I certainly should not have the temerity to interfere, but that is not the case at all. Those bodies responsible for trade unions in this country know what is going on in Ireland, and they know what has gone on during the last few weeks, because it has been a very great drain upon their resources in this country. The reason is not that the Protestants and Catholics have fallen out, as they have done before, but that a new political fight is taking place, and Castledawson has nothing whatever to do with it. It is not only the Hibernians who are being persecuted, and being made the targets for Unionist rivets in Belfast at the present time, but every man, whether he is Protestant or Catholic, who has not subscribed to the rolls of the Unionist clubs is liable at the present moment to be assaulted by those who have. That is the situation. We had a deputation over here yesterday of Belfast workmen. As a matter of fact, they were both Protestants and Catholics, and there was a third section who declined to be classified either as Protestants or Catholics. They gave us evidence. I am not going to say that that evidence was final, but I give it as it was given to us by men who spoke from experience as responsible men. What I have said just now is the gist of the evidence we got from them yesterday. We have had it from them in letters before in detail as full as we could get it, giving the days and names and circumstances and conditions, and altogether it would be quite impossible for us to resist coming to the conclusion which we have come to.
    Captain CRAIG: What is that conclusion?
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: That Castledawson and the Hibernians, and Catholicism and Protestantism, have got nothing whatever to do with this struggle, but that it has been aroused by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of this House who have made very admirable and very pacific speeches here this afternoon. I hold in my hand one extract, and I am sure I could quote many such instances. This is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) said, speaking to the Women's

    2123
    Amalgamated Unionist and Tariff Reform Association in London on the 24th June last:—
    "When he went to Ulster he intended over there to break every law that was possible."
    What does that mean? The hon. and gallant Member who preceded me took a line which I for one do not propose to contest. He said, "We are out for rebellion, and until that rebellion comes we have got to remain here and make pacific speeches in this House, although we are doing the organising outside." I think that is a programme which every reasonable man can take his hat off to, and say, "Very well, if hon. Members have made up their minds to fulfil that programme, let them try it and take the consequences." I think that is a very reasonable position. Surely the hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well that the members of the Unionist clubs who are being enrolled now are not going to stand quietly by in Messrs. Harland and Wolff's workshops or Messrs. Workman and Clark's workshops, and work side by side with the men they are going to be called upon to shoot down on some new 12th July when the hon. and gallant Member comes to give the word for that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, they cannot possibly go into the country and make Tower Hill speeches, say in Blenheim, and then come here, and in the mildest and most mealy-mouthed way urge my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to send soldiers and policemen to shoot down their own victims, and those whom they have egged on. I quite sympathise with the hon. Member in the heroic part of his programme, but sympathising with him as I do, after all I cannot understand why he has taken up the attitude he has taken up to-day. He cannot choose his day. He is taking up the cause of the persons who have been influenced by such speeches as those which I have quoted. That is the kind of Unionist toleration we are witnessing in Belfast to-day, but we are not unprepared at all. The hon. and gallant Member said he predicted what would happen. Yes, and he has taken care that it would happen.
    Captain CRAIG: I hope the hon. Member does not doubt what I stated, that personally I and those associated with me, have had nothing whatever to do with the disturbances in Belfast. The hon. Member is using a very strong expression when he says that I have taken care that it would happen.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I have tried to make it quite clear to the House what I meant. I think the hon. and gallant Member will see my point. It is perfectly true that he has told us to-day that he dissociates himself from what is going on in Belfast just now. When he makes that statement certainly there is no hon. Member in this House who would refuse to accept his assurance. But that is not my point. My point is not that you should not accept his assurance, but if the hon. and gallant Member uses certain expressions, and if the right hon. and learned Member who preceded him speaks as he has done in the quotation I have already given, then they have to make up their minds that the things which are now happening in Belfast are the direct consequences of what they have said. I am not at all surprised that these things should happen, because we know the sort of things that happen in this country. I do not want to drag that in now, because it would be quite out of order, and I only wish to say by way of illustration, that I have been going through certain reports in certain newspapers, and I find that men associated with the Labour party in certain political contests who have served certain firms well for a long time, have suddenly been discovered to be inferior workmen. That is the sort of thing which is perfectly common, and it is not confined to Belfast. That same spirit of political persecution is being shown by people who are in a state of great excitement, and who consequently back it up by force and supplement it by rivets stolen from their employers. The only point I want to make is that in asking the Home Secretary to protect our Members, we are not asking him to protect Catholics against Protestants, but we are simply asking him to protect a certain body of trade unionists against a body belonging to a political union.
    I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland made a verbal slip towards the end of his speech when he said that this was an industrial quarrel. It is not an industrial quarrel at all, because it is a political quarrel. I have not the least doubt about it, and I can almost hear the speeches coming on this subject. We have never said during all this dock strike or in any of the other strikes that the authorities responsible for law and order should allow law and order to go by the board. As a matter of fact, I said here not so many weeks ago

    2125
    precisely the opposite. Our contention has always been that if a display of soldiers is used, say at a dock strike, or if there is an over-display of police force, instead of establishing and maintaining law and order those very displays are things that are calculated to upset law and order. Our contention may be right or wrong, but we have never said that when trouble took place and conflicts between two bodies of workmen took place that the authorities should simply stand by with their hands in their pockets and allow things to work themselves out. The difference is a fundamental one. We have not yet discovered how to settle industrial disputes without resorting to a strike under certain circumstances, and that war is carried on by both sides on certain well-defined lines, and it must be either a lock-out or a general strike—the lock-out by the employers and the strike by the men. If bad feeling is created by the introduction of a Home Rule Bill, if bad feeling is stirred up between two men by one saying Ulster is going to be deteriorated in its status by this Bill and the other saying Ulster is going to be elevated in its status by this Bill, what sort of bad feeling is going to be created between two men, one saying he wants to raise the status of his class and the other saying, "I do not care for the industrial status of my class. You combined workmen raise wages to 10d. an hour. I am willing to work for 8d. per hour"? Surely in future disputes, however much we may regret them, and however much we may protest that law and order must be maintained, hon. Members opposite will sympathise with us far more than they have done hitherto, because, if passion is created under the conditions they have to face, can they not imagine how much more passion is created under the conditions which we unfortunaely have to face! As a matter of fact, neither for them nor for us is this excuse of provocation fit to justify the sort of thing that is going on in Belfast. I hope we will never justify it if it happens in the course of a trade dispute, and I am surprised they are trying to justify it at the present time in connection with a mere political dispute. When men quarrel about fighting for their industrial status then hon. Members always clamour for police and soldiers, but, if men quarrel because one man says, "My politics are green," and the other says, "my politics are yellow," then they say that is a perfect justification for everything that
    2126
    happens. I have taken up a perfectly consistent view. This is not an industrial dispute: it is a political dispute; and I hope the Chief Secretary will see to it that he protects the workmen who desire to work, and not allow political differences to keep 2,500 Catholics, Labour men, Socialists, Protestants, and Home Rulers out, because 14,000 or some other number of workmen believe in Unionism, follow hon. Members opposite, and think that Home Rule is going to be a calamity, when, as a matter of fact, it is going to be a great blessing to the country in which they live.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The remarkable utterances we have just heard from the hon. Member for Leicester leads me to offer one or two words of comment. I begin with noting the fact that he, like the Chief Secretary, was of the opinion that the occurrence at Castledawson had nothing whatever to do with the present unfortunate disturbance. That is a matter of opinion, and of course the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are perfectly entitled to hold that opinion if they will. I can only say that in point of time the two affairs are remarkably intimately connected. The right hon. Gentleman said these disturbances began in Belfast on the 2nd July. The Castledawson outrage took place on the 29th June. The 29th June was a Saturday, and the news of the affair did not appear in the papers until the morning of Monday, 1st July. I think there is strong primâ facie evidence, from the point of time if nothing else, that those series of unhappy occurrences that have taken place all arose and came to a focus in the disgraceful outrage which took place at Castledawson. The right hon. Gentleman pooh-poohs the idea of outrages. I understand his theory and the theory which some hon. Gentlemen appear to have is that, if two or four or a number of grown men have a political dispute and one of them is somewhat seriously injured, that is a deplorable outrage; but, if a little boy has his hand spiked by a satellite of some hon. Gentleman below the Gangway that is a party riot.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Was his hand spiked?
    Earl WINTERTON: Yes, it was. It was attested to on oath.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It was not proved.
    Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. Gentleman states that a little boy's hand was pierced by one of my satellites. I want to know, first, whether he is justified in making that

    2127
    statement; and, secondly, on a point of Order, whether the hon. Gentleman is entitled to say one of my satellites did a thing which never happened.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I repeat what I said a moment ago. It is sworn on evidence that a small boy had his hand pierced, and it is sworn on evidence that the attack was made by a band of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman, even anxious as he is to run away whenever he gets an opportunity, will disown his connection with that body. I say under these circumstances my statement was perfectly justified. I want to call attention further to the extraordinary way in which the case has been brought forward this afternoon. My right hon. Friend said, and I entirely agree with him, there is nobody on these benches who would attempt to minimise the seriousness of any occurrence of this kind or attempt to palliate it. I sincerely hope they will be at an end; but I do think we are entitled to call attention to the extraordinary fact that this is brought to the notice of the House of Commons—who by?—by a hon. Gentleman sitting below the Gangway. They talk of horrible and scandalous outrages taking place. Is this the first time horrible and scandalous outrages have taken place in Ireland? Is this the first time within the last half century or within the last twenty-five years, or ten years, or even the last year, that outrages have taken place in Ireland? Yet hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have never lifted one word in denunciation. Their own priests and bishops have denounced the outrages, but they have remained silent. The Bishop of Killaloe, the other day, delivered a most weighty and serious pronouncement upon the state of crime in certain parts of Ireland. Do you find the hon. Member for West Belfast coming down to the House of Commons and drawing the attention of the Chief Secretary to this state of things? Not one word comes from him, and my hon. Friend says not one word comes from the Labour party.
    The hon. Member for West Belfast, in a most remarkable passage, said that, if there was one thing for which the Nationalist party stood more than another, it was the vindication of the principle of the right to work; the right to
    2128
    work under the protection of the law. I confess I was a little anxious to hear how the hon. Member for Leicester dealt with, that point. He contrived, if I may say so quite respectfully, to evade it. The hon. Member for West Belfast says he is in favour of the principle of the right of every man to work free and unmolested. Why did he vote against our Amendment? The first thing that naturally occurs to anyone who has had any Parliamentary experience at all when the hon. Member refers to an Amendment proposed by the Tory party, and holds it up to scorn, is to go and get the Division List and see what happened. The first name I find in the Division List against the Amendment is that of the hon. Member for West Belfast. That shows how far his loyalty to the principle of the right to work goes. It is a very great pity the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester affirming these excellent principles and sentiments was not made six weeks ago. If it had been made six weeks ago, a great deal of the unhappy circumstances which have taken place in dock-land might, I hope, have been avoided. I am just going to make a little comparison. The Chief Secretary spoke about the horrible fact that eight or nine men, who were calmly working, were assaulted. I agree it is very unfortunate and deplorable that they were, but how many men, calmly working at the London docks, were assaulted?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Eight or nine men were assaulted so as to be in danger of their lives. There were eighty assaulted altogether.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: How many men were assaulted in the London docks? There are fifty men in one hospital alone. The right hon. Gentleman says that 1,500 men have been prevented from going down to their work. In London there were places for 16,000 or 17,000 men if they could have got there. The right hon. Gentleman talks about disorganising industry in Harland and Wolff's. Industry has been far more seriously disorganised in the Port of London. I am not quarrelling with the measures the right hon. Gentleman thinks fit to take for the preservation of peace in Belfast. His is the responsibility, and the last thing I or any of my colleagues want to do is to try and embarrass him in discharging that responsibility. It is a grave responsibility, and nobody knows it better than I do, but I only wish the right hon. Gentleman would communicate the know-

    2129
    ledge of the measures he is taking in Belfast to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If he did that, then I think we should have less of what I cannot but call the very strong flavour of political hypocrisy which has pervaded a good many of the speeches of those who have brought forward this Motion to-night.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: At Question Time there was a conversation across the floor of the House with reference to the length of time this Debate should continue. There was a general desire that another Irish Vote should be considered, and, bearing in mind the fact that the discussion on the Estimates comes to a close at ten o'clock, I think it would be reasonable if this Debate were now shortly ended. I therefore will not enter at any length at all into the matter under discussion now. I will confine my remarks to a very few sentences. I think the hon. Member for West Belfast has fulfilled a public duty by bringing this matter before the House. I am not at all sure, notwithstanding the publicity given in certain papers in this country of what is going on in Belfast, that the public in this country generally realise at all the state of things that it is now proved exists in that city. The facts, as stated by my hon. Friend, have not been disputed. It is not merely a case of men who have been assaulted, and goodness knows that is bad enough, but the broad fact remains, as stated by the Chief Secretary, that about 2,500 workmen are at present unable to return to their work, and that his only hope is that by providing certain pickets of policemen and of soldiers at certain stated intervals along Queen's Road gradually, two at a time I think he said, these men might go back to their employment, and the crisis might, in that way, be over. You have, therefore, this extraordinary and significant fact, that apart from any question of brutal assault, you have this large body of workmen, not of one religion only, but Protestants as well as Catholics, kept forcibly from their work because of their political opinions and because they are supposed to be in favour of Home Rule. When you come to the explanation of the causes of this attitude on the part of Orangemen in Belfast, one thing stands out quite clear, in my opinion, from the Debate. The excuse as to Castledawson cannot deceive anybody. It is suggested that there a number of men had brutally assaulted the women and children; but the Chief Secre-
    2130
    tary has stated to this House that there has not been one single syllable of evidence to prove that any woman or child was hurt on the occasion. If it be true that this story of Castledawson had any influence in exciting public opinion in Ulster, then it is due to the false, lying story promulgated about it in this House. But I do not for a moment believe that the Castledawson incident is the cause of this excitement and of this illegal conduct in Belfast. An hon. and gallant Member who spoke just now reminded the House, with amusing candour, that from the very first the Government were warned that this kind of thing would take place if they introduced the Home Rule Bill. He therefore blames the Government for having introduced that Bill and caused the trouble. Yet that Bill has at its back the support of an overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, of almost, if not entirely, one-half of the population of Ulster, and of a large majority of the people of Great Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] A large majority of the elected representatives of the people of Great Britain. [HON. MKMBERS: "No, no."]. You cannot dispute the Division Lists. The Bill has also at its back undoubtedly the goodwill of an overwhelming majority of people belonging to all political parties in the self-governing portions of the Empire. The claim put forward is that the Government, because they introduced a Bill with that support behind it, is responsible for the riots in Belfast, because a minority of the people in that corner of Ulster do not like Home Rule.
    Unfortunately, the causes of these disturbances are perfectly plain. I remember when people, more important than the hon. Member who last spoke, and more responsible as well, accused us of not doing anything to denounce illegalities in Ireland when they were going on. These illegalities in Ulster have been going on for some time—this rioting, these assaults and the driving of the people from their work. Yet, when the pillars of the great constitutional party of law and order went down to Blenheim, they, having read in their newspapers about these outrages in Ulster, committed avowedly by their political supporters, what did they say? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) has been making a series of speeches with the object, I suppose, of maintaining law and order and peace and tranquility in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman

    2131
    was very smooth and peaceable to-day. But what has he been saying on platforms throughout the country? He said, the other day that the time has now come to take a step forward in this Ulster opposition to Home Rule, and then he announced that he was going to Ireland; that he was going to Ulster; and that it was his intention to break every law that he could. At Blenheim he said, "steps will now be taken," and then he corrected himself by saying, that "steps are now being taken" to make Home Rule impossible. Therefore, so far from any word of disapproval or condemnation of this practice coming from these pillars of the constitutional party, words have been deliberately used by men having this responsibility, which must have been read by their supporters in Belfast as approval of what was going on. They must have been so read by the ordinary rioter in Belfast, who was engaged in this conduct.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the senior Member for Trinity College who is not at the moment in the House, but I would remind him that my right hon. Friend, prior to the 11th July, wrote a public letter to the Press denouncing these practices.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt wrote a letter to the Press expressing a hope that, on the 12th July, there would be no trouble. Since then rioting and outrages have taken place, and he has spoken more than once; and instead of disapproving of this conduct in any way; instead of complaining of his letters having been disobeyed; instead of deprecating these disorders, he has again used words which must have been read in Belfast as approval of what was going on. He made this declaration in the presence of the Leader of the Opposition, who, I am glad to see, has just come back into the House. I hope that right hon. Gentleman will take part in this Debate and will explain how the right hon. Member for Dublin University, having, in his presence, said he would break every law in Ireland, having, when rioting and outrage was at that moment going on in Belfast, said that steps are now being taken with his authority and approval for making Home Rule impossible, explain how it was that he then got up and said that there were no lengths to which Ulster might not go, and there were no means that Ulster might not adopt, in
    2132
    order to defeat Home Rule, that he and his colleagues would not support. All I have to say, in conclusion, is that I hope the Chief Secretary will take vigorous action in Belfast, and that he will see that the police there are properly handled. A great deal, I am afraid, of what has happened in recent days, since this trouble commenced, has been due to the fact that they have not been as well or as vigorously handled as they ought to have been. I hope that now public attention has been called to this matter, the right hon. Gentleman will take every step necessary to protect these 2,500 Catholic and Protestant workmen, and I sincerely hope also that the general public will be informed by this Debate, and will realise the situation that has been created by the reckless and inflammatory speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast on having done this service to the cause of order.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not suppose, if any hon. Member has thought it worth while to read the remarks I made last Saturday, that he will be surprised if I take advantage of the opportunity now afforded me to repeat and justify and emphasise them. The hon. Member for West Belfast, in introducing this Debate, spoke at great length of the outrages which have been going on in Belfast, and he quoted words of mine in which I said that in office or out of office, I would never be responsible for preventing any man carrying on any legal occupation. I said that with regard to disputes at home, and I say the same thing in regard to what is going on in Belfast to-day. I would be the very last to find the smallest fault with the Chief Secretary for doing everything within his power to see that men who desire to work are permitted to work in Belfast. But, having said that, I feel bound to add that, in my opinion, it would be a good thing for the government of this country not to be carried on in compartments, and for the rules which are applied to men who are their political supporters to be equally applied to other men. I would say, futher, that while I do not complain of any action the right hon. Gentleman has taken, I would remind him that Belfast is not the only place where outrage has taken place; yet during the long term of his office he has never shown the same determination to uphold law as he is showing now. In regard to what I said at Blenheim, I am very glad to have an

    2133
    opportunity of repeating it here. The words which have been criticised were that if the Government attempted under existing conditions—and I made it quite plain what those existing conditions were—if the Government attempted under existing conditions to drive the people of Ulster by force out of the protection of this House and of British law, I could imagine no means too strong for them to take to prevent it.
    7.0 P.M.
    In saying that I said nothing new as far as I am personally concerned. I said the same thing in August a year ago, when I was perfectly convinced what would be the inevitable result of the Government policy. I recognise, however, the difference, and the great difference, between saying it when I was practically a private Member and saying it as Leader of the Unionist party in this House. I have felt for months that sooner or later it would be necessary for me to say the same thing in the clearest and most explicit way. I refrained from saying it so long as it seemed to me that there was any possibility of the Government acting up to the suggestions made by their own party—made, for instance, by the Foreign Secretary, who said that if Ulster made the Bill impossible they must find some other solution. I refrained from saying it so long as there was a possibility that the Government might find another solution. They have now made it perfectly plain that, if they have any policy at all for the future, that policy is to force this million of people in the Northern corner of Ulster to accept an allegiance which they look upon with horror and which, indeed, they refuse to accept. I say further, that under any circumstances, for people of this country to force such action upon so large and concentrated a minority is conduct which I do not think can possibly be justified. But when an attempt is made, in the most barefaced way, to inflict this horrible injustice, without any indication that the people of this country are in favour of it—to inflict it, as I say, avowedly in the interests of the party which is led by the hon. Gentleman on that bench below me—when they are trying to do that, when, as every man in this House knows, at the last election they deliberately kept Home Rule in the background, when everyone of them refused to put it in their election addrosses—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not true"]—every one of the important
    2134
    Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite, including the Chief Secretary, who, strange to say, forgot all about it—refused to put it in their election addresses—when they hid it from the country, to attempt to do it now is an outrage which ought to be resisted by every means in the power of the people on whom this injustice is to be inflicted.
    I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite—if they are willing to consider this matter apart from party prejudice—to look at the facts. Is there one of them who is certain that if this issue were submitted to the people of this country to-day a majority would be found in favour of this Home Rule Bill? I daresay some of them think it; but is there one of them who is sure of it? We have something to guide us. All over the country by-elections are taking place. At the time of the General Election, in many of these constituencies to my certain knowledge—North-West Manchester is one of them—the candidate who supported the Government declared that Home Rule was not an issue at that election, and now they are pretending that they have the right, in such circumstances, with the clear knowledge that they have not any expression of the will of the people behind them, to inflict this injustice upon the people of Ulster. Whatever else may be said of the remarks I made on Saturday, this at least cannot be said, that they were made thoughtlessly. I have been carefully considering them for a long time, and I did what I rarely do—I actually wrote down the words I used. I thoroughly realised the seriousness of what I was doing, and I realised it for this reason: I thought it quite possible that many of my own supporters in this House might think that I was going too far. In my own opinion this is the most serious situation which has arisen in this country since 1642. I felt that, holding the views which I do hold, I was bound to express them. But something more follows. If I had found that there was any considerable number of my supporters in this House, or of the party outside, who disapproved of what I had said, I should have considered that in such a crisis I was not a suitable Leader for the party, and I should have resigned the position I hold. I have as good means as most people of finding out what the opinion of the Unionist party in this House is. I have seen no sign that there is not a Member of the party who does not endorse every word I say.

    2135
    I ask the Prime Ministef—it is he whom it chiefly concerns—to realise two things. They think, or pretend to think, that all this talk is exaggeration and bluff. They pretend to think it; but I believe that in their hearts they know better. I ask them to realise these two things: first, that the people in the North-East of Ulster are not bluffing, that they mean what they say, and will carry out what they say; and, in the second place, that under existing conditions, so long as there is no evidence that the Government is supported by the people of this country, it is not I, it is the Unionist party, which represents more than one-half of the people of Great Britain, who are determined that this shall not be allowed to take place. It may be asked, "Even if you hold these views, why is it necessary to express them now? There are two years before this calamity, as you consider it, can happen." I will tell the House why. I think it necessary to express them now. Nothing seems to me more certain than that the state of tension which now exists cannot continue for two years from this time. I am certain of this, and if the Government make the smallest inquiry they will find I am right, that if this Home Rule Bill is carried through this House this autumn, and if apparently all that is necessary to make it law is that eighteen months should elapse, there will be such a state of feeling in Ireland that the Government will find it impossible to cope with it, and it is their duty not to face it. It all comes down to this question: have they or have they not the moral right under existing conditions to carry through a revolution like this? That is the whole question. Under their Parliament Act they have legally the power to do away with the Monarchy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! oh."] Yes, they have, and to set up a Republic. In the same way they have the power to drive these loyal citizens out of the British communion. They have no more moral right to do one than the other, and they will be resisted to the last in either.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentlemen should have thought it expedient and, indeed, necessary, to explain, so far as he can, and to justify the language he used in the country the other day, which, so far as I know, can find no parallel in the language of any responsible statesman in this country.
    Captain CRAIG: There have been no parallel circumstances.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The House has heard his justification. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that if this Parliament should see fit, in the exercise of what he admits to be well within its legal competence, to pass a Home Rule Bill into law in the course of the next two years, in his opinion, his deliberate opinion, it would be the right of the minority of the people in Ireland to resist the application of that measure by force.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Indicated assent.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered what might happen if in the whirligig of political fortunes he and his Friends should become responsible for the Government of the country, and has he considered what might be the attitude of the people of Ireland in view of the advice he has given—the attitude, not of the minority, but of a very large and overwhelming majority—that if a subsequent Parliament should refuse to grant them their constitutional demands they would be able to appeal, and appeal with irresistible force—
    Mr. BONAR LAW: If the position which the right hon. Gentleman contemplates arises, we shall have gained power by clearly stating what our intentions were, which he has not done.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That interruption is quite irrelevant. It deals with a point which I shall not omit to make before I sit down. I come back to my question. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends who are associating themselves with him, that if the contingency which I have described should arise, and, mind you, it would arise if you succeed in defeating this Bill, what answer are you going to make—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see"]—to the vast majority of the Irish people when they resist the considered determination of Parliament and appeal to the language of the right hon. Gentleman himself to justify their action? I am not saying that would justify it; not at all. I believe that this country must continue to be governed, as it has been governed, in accordance with the laws enacted by the King, Lords and Commons in Parliament, whatever those laws may be, and however distasteful they may be

    2137
    to sections of our fellow-countrymen. The moment you lay down, as the leaders of the constitutional party lay down, the doctrine that a minority—I do not care what minority, if you like a majority—are entitled, because a particular Act of legislation is distasteful to their views, and, as they think, oppressive to their interests, to resist it by force, there is an absolute end to Parliamentary Government. That, Sir, is the real significance of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. It is a declaration of war against constitutional Government. I come to his question. He says that although we have a legal right, we have not the moral competence, to pass legislation of this character. Why? [An HON. MEMBER: "Fraud."] I hear the word "fraud." Because it is suggested, not for the first time, nor is it the first time I have heard it suggested, that there was a conspiracy to conceal from the electors at the last General Election the intention of the Government, as soon as the Parliament Act was passed, to deal with this question of Irish Home Rule. The refutation of that suggestion is to be found in the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and of the Leader of the Opposition himself. I am not going through the whole string of quotations again. I am content to take the statement of certainly one of the most respected and responsible leaders of the party opposite upon the very eve of the election in December, 1910—I mean Lord Lansdowne. Lord Lansdowne said of me, the person who was supposed to have "tricked" the electors, and by some strange hypnotic process to have induced them to vote blindfold for something they did not understand—he said of me:—
    "He, the Prime Minister, has made it perfectly clear that if yon return the Liberal Government to power, and they puss the Parliament Act, the first thing they will do will be to give Home Rule to Ireland."
    I see all those Gentlemen sitting there. Does anyone deny that Lord Lansdowne said that? Did he mean it or did he not mean it? Was it true or was it not true? If he meant it, and if it was true, this charge that we tricked the doctors and that they voted in ignorance of the issue, is one of the most flimsy and ridiculous charges ever made. I assert that nothing was more clearly brought home, both by the supporters and opponents of the Government, to the mind of the electors at the last General Election than that the first use which would be made of the Parliament Act would be to pass this very legislation which is now before the House of Commons. I have been led, much
    2138
    against my will, into what is really a digression from the point which is actually before the House at this moment, whether or not these disgraceful proceedings in Belfast ought or ought not to receive the condemnation of every one inside or outside the House. The whole force of the law is, I am glad to say, being exerted to put an end to it, but I cannot acquit of responsibility for the state of feeling of which they are the outcome and by which they have been fomented these open incitements to violence by a responsible statesman.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: We have listened to one more apology from the Prime Minister for the part he has taken in the recent political history of this country, and I must say that a more unfortunate example even this House has not witnessed. Let me sweep aside for the moment the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman. No one speaking from these benches has justified for an instant the attacks which have taken place on workmen in Belfast. I have listened very carefully to what has been said by hon. Members on this side. We do not for a moment justify interference with free labour, whether it takes place in Belfast or in the docks in London. We are not reluctant to see the forces of the police backed up by the military if the forces of the police are not sufficient to carry out their duties. It is not on us that rests the responsibility of allowing disturbances to grow into riots because the Government have not the courage or the resolution to send a sufficient force to put down those riots. I put aside that sentence of the right hon. Gentleman as altogether irrelevant. What is the charge? The charge is that speeches by Members of the Opposition have led to these riots. A more ridiculous charge was never made. What are the words quoted from my right hon. Friend? They are that if Home Rule is passed, by means that we regard as a gross fraud, and as one of the most discreditable political tricks which have ever been perpetrated, and is attempted to be imposed by force on the people of Ulster, they will be justified in taking any means to resist it. What possible connection has that got with riots or oppression of Catholic workmen by Protestants in the works of Harland and Wolff? These Gentlemen are the defenders of law and order, many of whom have been found by the judges of this country, not indeed guilty of crime and outrage, but of adopting a line of conduct

    2139
    which led to crime and outrage, and persisted in it with full knowledge of its effects. These are the Gentlemen who pretend to be shocked at my right hon. Friend's language. Why do we say that this Bill has been promoted by a trick? We say it because the Government undoubtedly did everything they could to keep from the electors the knowledge of what they proposed to do. Of course we do not deny that we did our best to tear the veil from the eyes of the electors. It is quite plain that the electors at the last election preferred the statements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite to those that we made. Otherwise they would not be there.
    What is the use of quoting statements made by Lord Lansdowne or anyone else? Those were the statements which the electors did not accept. Hon. Members seem to think that is a very startling statement. It is perfectly plain. You have two political opponents. I fought an election myself at Wisbech. I said at every meeting, "This will end in Home Rule," and my opponent said, as far as he could at every meeting, that it would not. They declined to believe that Home Rule was a serious or pressing danger. That was the difficulty we were in. They regarded it as a red-herring. It was not a serious thing. It was a bogey. Now hon. Members opposite have the effrontery to come down to the House and say, "Because you made statements which the electors did not accept, we were not guilty of any attempt to deceive the electors." Of course they attempted to deceive the electors, and unfortunately they succeeded; and now they are using the power which they thus obtained to carry out their deception into law. Surely hon. and right hon. Gentlemen must see that the Constitution which they have endeavoured to establish and have established in this country is absolutely unworkable. Everyone knows that the authority of Parliament is not what it was because you have taken away any possibility of appealing from this House to the electors. Until you restore that appeal you cannot expect that the authority of this House will be respected in the country. I regret as much as anyone—I profoundly regret—the breaches of law and order which are taking place not only in Ulster, but elsewhere. They are growing and respect for the authority of the law is diminishing. I am not here to judge whether Ulster is right or wrong, but I say it is
    2140
    perfect folly to disregard the fact that Ulster undoubtedly will fight. The thing is perfectly absurd. Of course it is the cue of hon. Members from Ireland to make histrionic displays, but no one who has been there doubts their determination, and least of all the Chief Secretary. He knows quite well that the danger is a real one and to try by your tyrannical Constitution, by what we regard as a distinct fraud on the population, to force this measure through without any appeal to the country—and remember that is the whole object of your Parliament Act—to avoid an appeal to the country—and to try and bribe Ulster into submission by these means, is insanity and worse than insanity. It is a gross and criminal fraud upon the people of this country.
    Mr. NEIL PRIMROSE: I intervene only because the Noble Lord did me the honour to refer to me personally. I will not follow him into all the reasoning that he indulged in and which his very exuberant imagination and somewhat excitable temper has led him to indulge in. As far as I can see, it has nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion. But I understood him to say he told the electors of Wisbeeh that if I was elected Home Rule would follow and that I told them that Home Rule would not follow.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: What I said was that the hon. Gentleman did his best to keep Home Rule in the background.
    Mr. NEIL PRIMROSE: I think I am in the recollection of the House that that is not what the Noble Lord said, and if it is what he meant to say I do not think his legal training has brought his language to that pitch of perfection which it should have done. If he will look into the REPORTS to-morrow he will see that, though no doubt he meant to make the remark he has just made, in the excitement of the moment he did not do so. As it has been frequently referred to, I suppose I may say a word about that election. I did refer to Home Rule, though I admit not in every speech, but I was asked about it, and I gave my views that I was in favour of some measure of self-government for Ireland. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but how can a private individual with absolutely no connection with the Government except as a general supporter of its policy come forward and formulate a Home Rule Bill? There is one extract from a speech of the Noble Lord, the sense of which I happen to carry in my head, in

    2141
    which he said, "What are Mr. Primrose's views about Home Rule? As far as I can make out, he is in favour of some measure of Home Rule with adequate safeguards." I think that shows that I did not conceal from my Constituents that I was in favour of some measure of Home Rule. I think if the Noble Lord wants an explanation of that election he need not look into the future: he must look into his own past. On that past the electors of Wisbech have judged him, and if he goes there again they will judge him once more.
    Mr. CHAMBERS: I am exceedingly glad to find that amongst the Liberal party there is at least one righteous man who in the course of last election brought the question of Home Rule before the electors, and gave them an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. I think the charge so frequently made from this side of the House has never yet been properly answered. Nor do I think it is capable of being answered, namely, that during the election, or, at all events, until the Prime Minister made some reference to it, the question of Home Rule was kept in the background, and that no substantial number of Liberal candidates mentioned it in their election addresses, or made it a crucial question in the speeches they delivered. I think that if ever a criticism was justified from a party it is the criticism made at the present time that the policy of Home Rule for Ireland is being forced upon the country without the country having expressed their opinion in reference to it. The Prime Minister has to-night dealt with the language used by the Leader of the Opposition. I venture to remark that the circumstances existing to-day in reference to this particular question have no parallel in the history of this country. Here you have a policy the result of which will be in effect to drive out from the British connection a large section of people who have always been loyal and true to that connection, and to compel them to submit to the control, while in a perpetual minority, of a body of men who have always held opinions hostile to their own, and whose methods they have at all times condemned. While it may be an extreme measure for Ulster to revolt and rebel against such a policy, I as one who knows Ulster from top to bottom, and who has spent the greater portion of my life in that province, can say, with the utmost confidence, that the people there will never consent to such a policy being forced upon
    2142
    them, but will use every means in their power to resent it, to resist it, and to be free from it.
    The discussion to-day has, I think, somewhat wandered. It began with a speech by the hon. Gentleman who represents West Belfast (Mr. Devlin), and since then it has taken, so far as I am concerned, a bewildering course. The hon. Member, in introducing the discussion, referred to the state of affairs in Belfast as being mainly religious. He was followed some time afterwards by the Chief Secretary, who described the situation existing there as an industrial dispute. Then the right hon. Gentleman was followed by the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), who told us that it was neither religious nor industrial, but really a political dispute. He ventured on a statement which I am anxious to take this opportunity of contradicting vigorously. The hon. Member stated that he had recently had emissaries from Belfast who assured him that the fact that workmen would not join what he described as Unionist clubs was the reason why they were banned and boycotted, and made the object of contumely and abuse. I say deliberately—and I yield to no man in my knowledge of the people of Belfast, high and low—that no statement was ever made falser than that. The membership of Unionist clubs in Belfast demonstrates that a statement of that kind is baseless. I believe that no workman and no individual of any class in Belfast has ever been subjected to any discomfort by reason of the fact that he declined to join a Unionist club. I think, after all, the hon. Member is to be more or less sympathised with, for I have frequently heard him make references to Belfast, and I have always been sorry for him, because they betrayed such a woeful lack of knowledge of the conditions among the people of that city. It is possible that the emissaries to whom he referred were over here in quest of money, and that they were doing what is colloquially called pulling his leg.
    As regards the recent incidents in Belfast, I join most heartily with those who have described them as intensely regrettable. The situation existing there is one which every man who has the welfare of the community at heart most sincerely deplores. I am perfectly certain that no man with influence or position, be he foreman or workman, in that community has done anything else than to exert his utmost power to restore peace and good

    2143
    order. It has been said that conduct such as has been pursued in the last few days in Belfast injures the cause of those who take part in the disorder. I was delighted to hear the Chief Secretary state to-day that there has not been any repetition of the incidents during the past few days. I feel perfectly confident that nobody in the community who has any sense of responsibility has in any way contributed to them. I would like to say that such conduct cannot advance the political cause of any party. We are anxious for the success of the policy in opposition to Home Rule. Those who are opposed to Home Rule would readily say that such disorderly conduct could in no way advance their cause, but must be an absolute drawback and injury to it. They must see that when these incidents occur advantage will be taken of them for the purpose of exaggerating and magnifying what takes place. These incidents are pointed to by our opponents as evidence of the bigotry and intolerance of my fellow countrymen in the North of Ireland. There is one thing the House should recollect in connection with this matter. The whole affair is deplorable, but it has been woefully exaggerated. I would appeal to hon. Members who are applying their minds to this question to-day to go back over the history of Belfast. So long as I remember, now a considerable number of years, there have been from time to time outbreaks in that city. One year you would have a violent not extending over weeks, and another year you will have skirmishes. But they are incidents which take place in that city; they have always been deplored, but they have never led to such a scene as this in the House of Commons. They did not seem to matter, and they were not regarded as incidents out of which political capital could be made.
    We have often mentioned from these benches that there are in Ireland two classes of people who never were, are not, and never can be reconciled. There have been outbursts of feeling on the part of these two classes all along. In the last fifty years they demonstrate the truth of what we have been saying as to the irreconcilable character of the people. They demonstrate that nothing but the strong arm of Britain over both will ever secure justice and fairness amongst them. They demonstrate that the policy you are pursuing to-day, which will place one of these sections under the perpetual control
    2144
    of the other which is in the minority, is a policy which must result in disaster, and the justify that minority in the policy which they avow they will pursue if it is persisted in. I can only express the hope that by some means, before the Home Rule Bill becomes law, something will occur to stay the hands of the Government, for I believe that far more serious troubles than those which are of yearly occurrence in Belfast will take place if the measure passes into law, I do trust something will occur, and I believe something will occur, to prevent this policy being carried into law—something which will prevent the possibility of the awful calamity which will result if the measure should ever find its way on to the Statute Book. This matter is exaggerated in another way. It is necessary for hon. Gentlemen to remember that the ebullitions of feeling which take place at certain times of the year are opposed by the great body of the workmen of Belfast, and that it is the younger men who are pursuing these methods. It is an outrage and a slander on the vast majority of the tradesmen and workmen in the employment of Messrs. Workman and Clark, and Messrs. Harland and Wolff to say that they are in sympathy with the handful of men who have been guilty of the outrages which have been described here to-day, and which only bring discredit on themselves and the city in which they live. They are a mere handful, and the ordinary police, if called upon in time, would have been perfectly able to cope with them, coupled with the natural resentment which responsible workmen in the workshops feel as regards this conduct. Believe me the tradesmen and workmen of Belfast know as well as the tradesmen and workmen of any English community that if they allow such folly as this to go on their own industry and means of earning a livelihood will be imperilled. All that was required was a firm hand and strong supervision on the part of the police. If that had been given the trouble, which had been growing from day to day, would have been absolutely quelled, and peace and order would have prevailed.
    While dealing with this subject I would utter one word of warning based upon my own personal experience. I remember some of the most grave riots that ever took place in that city. I believe they were maintained for a far greater length of time than they otherwise would have been on account of the introduction of the

    2145
    military. The slightest word leads to stonethrowing and disaster, and I do respectfully urge the Chief Secretary to consider whether, as a question of policy, it is wise to introduce military for the purpose of quelling disturbances such as exist in one or two particular places in Belfast. I, for one, am firmly convinced that the introduction of the military on the streets of Belfast will continue the excitement and disorder which have prevailed there.
    There is, after all, some excuse to be made for the men who have broken out at this particular time. Anybody who knows Belfast and its past as well as its recent history will bear me out when I say that in recent years these ebullitions of hostility at particular seasons of the year were becoming fewer and fewer. I believe that during the last seven or eight years the city of Belfast was not disgraced or degraded by anything in the nature of a riot. What has happened this year? There has been a measure which meets with bitter resentment on the part of the people of the North-East of Ireland. There is no foundation for the statement that the leaders of industry are to any extent in sympathy with that measure. Over 99 per cent. of them I believe are opposed to it, though many of them were strong supporters of Mr. Gladstone and are Liberals in every fibre of their being. These are the men, with one or two exceptions, who could be easily accounted for if there were time to enter on the subject, who are so bitterly opposed to this policy; but not only capitalists, but also the vast mass of the labouring classes, no matter what their views on other questions, are also opposed to it. I speak as man to man in this House. What would you expect if, in spite of their protests and the belief that you have not consulted the British public and you have not the majority of the British public at your back on this question, a measure of this kind were persisted in? They feel that it is being forced upon them against their will. They know that recently there was an effort made to exclude Ulster from the scope of the Home Rule measure. That proposal was rejected, and they were practically told, "You must submit."
    They know as well as we who have listened to them with pain, over and over again, that very frequently references are made to Ulster in this House in terms of contempt and insult. There was one to-day by the hon. Member for West Belfast,
    2146
    who, when telling of an unfortunate man who was being taken to hospital in the ambulance van belonging to the corporation, said that the civic arms of the great city of Belfast were actually broken, and spoke about them with an air of disrespect. These things are galling. If they are galling to men who take credit for some common-sense and some power of self-control, what must they be to the workman who feels that he is not being fairly treated, and that the constitution is being broken with one object in view, as the Prime Minister said to-night, to pass this measure. Will this not tend to create disorder in a community where disorder is easily created in matters of this kind? And is it to be pointed to as an illustration, either of bigotry or intolerance on the part of the people of Belfast, that under circumstances of provocation such as exist in that city this year, what has occurred has occurred, and are England and Scotland to be made ring with the tale of the outrage and brutality of Belfast, and of the unfitness of its people in consequence for even reasonable consideration of the claims put forward on their behalf?
    I have heard various defences made for the Castledawson incident. Whatever may be the number of the injured, one thing absolutely certain is that the affray was commenced by a number of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. The best defence that was ever made for them was made by the Chief Secretary to-night, when he described them as an angry and drunken band of Hibernians. He used that description without one word of protest from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Be it true or be it false, I have no criticism to make, that is entirely a matter for themselves. But why were they angry? It shows that what has been referred to to-day exists; that the dead walls are alive with such remarks as "Home Rule is coming," and that as you pass along the road you hear such expressions as "Our day is coming." Why were these men angry? They were passing from their own demonstration, and they met a harmless innocent body of young people, who had been out on a Sunday school demonstration. The only thing to cause even a protest was a Union Jack at the head of the procession. There were banners and bannerets with scripture texts. Those were the only emblems that were carried. Those were the object of the attack. If those were the things which angered this drunken band, it illustrates

    2147
    the temper of the people at the present moment. They could not let that harmless procession pass by without dragging the banners and bannerettes from them and practically saying, as somebody has said already in reference to the 12th of July demonstration, "This is the last but one you will ever be able to have." Those are things which cause annoyance, and I am perfectly certain from my knowledge of the community that that incident at Castledawson had much to say to the temper of the people in Belfast; and made it much more difficult to restrain the exhuberation among them; and much more difficult for those whose duty it was to maintain the peace to do so successfully.
    Jeers have been made at the leaders, and they have been accused of making use of riotous language, and language calculated to provoke breaches of the peace, and bring about results such as have occurred; but I am convinced that, if it had not been for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dublin University, and the other leaders of the Unionist party in Ireland accepted the leadership and got the men under control and inspired them with confidence in their leadership, the disorder which has existed in Belfast during the past week was but trifling compared with what would have occurred if the leaders had not taken the responsibility into their own hands of guiding and advising them as to what was best in their own interests, and best for the good of their cause. I am convinced that that leadership, instead of bringing about disorder has prevented it, and that it will continue to preserve that feeling in the main right through the times which lie ahead while efforts are being made to pass this Bill through the House of Commons, and that that leadership will be the one guarantee that peace on the whole will prevail in Ulster, while the withdrawal of that leadership will remove that which maintains order to-day and will maintain order. Let whatever may be the result of the policy which the party have decided upon, not as a party, but as a body of citizens who feel that they have been outraged in everything that they hold dear and in reference to their own business interests and prosperity, whatever that policy may be in the future I am convinced that the leadership which has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University will keep the peace and will continue to keep the peace, and
    2148
    nothing but the strongest provocation that not any man can stand will lead to a breach of the peace meanwhile, until the time arrives and is ripe for the introduction of that policy which has been foreshadowed and which will assuredly follow upon any attempt to put this Bill upon the Statute.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. BARNES: I wish to say a few words in consequence of what the hon. Member who has just sat down has said. When I came in he was throwing some discredit upon the deputation from Ireland that waited upon the Labour party yesterday, and he also threw some doubt upon the wisdom of the Labour party in associating itself with the hon. Member for West Belfast. I desire to tell him that the deputation from Ireland was thoroughly representative, not only of the Catholics of Belfast, but also of the Protestants of that great city. The hon. Gentleman told us that there are two sections in Belfast that are not reconcilable and never have been and never will be reconcilable. The deputation told us yesterday that up to within a month or two ago those sections in Belfast and the adjacent areas were being reconciled by them and their friends, and it was only because of the inflammatory speeches that have been made since by the right hon. Gentleman to whom the hon. Member has referred that those regrettable incidents had taken place. I am not going into those speeches. [An HON MEMBER: "Better not!"] Well, one could go into them. They have been before the House and they have been said, and rightly said, to have been speeches of such a character as to inflame the public mind of Belfast. I merely say that this deputation, which was representative of the Labour opinion in Belfast, Catholic and Protestant alike, assured us that they were taking steps, and taking steps successfully, to weld those two sections into one, and make them more amenable to reason until those regrettable speeches were made by the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. Further let me say, as the wisdom of it has been impugned, that I associate myself with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) in regard to the matter now before the House. We regret the conditions of things in Belfast, a condition almost unprecedented in any civilised city. It not only concerns the two sections of Irishmen living in Belfast, but it also concerns organised labour on this side of

    2149
    St. George's Channel. For many years back—I happen to know this of my intimate knowledge—trade unionists have been using money to send men to Belfast in consequence of the rapid development of industry there. I know that many of my friends have been sent there at the expense of trade unions. What has happened when they have got there? The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin said that there has been no occurrences of this character since 1896. That set my mind travelling back to the year 1893, when I myself was an officer of a trade union which sent men over to Belfast, and whose named I could now give. When those men got there they were actually chased out of the shop, exactly as men lave been chased out of the shops on this occasion. Recently, as a matter of fact, a trade union sent men to Belfast, and one of the men, from the Midlands of England, was brutally assaulted, as we are informed, in the presence of Mr. George Clark; junior, who exclaimed, "Serve him right." This is the sort of thing that we of the Labour party are thoroughly in accord with hon. Members opposite when they make their protest against such occurrences, and I wish Godspeed to the Chief Secretary in taking what action he may find necessary to prevent their repetition. I sent a telegram to the executive of a trade union of which I am a member. I asked for some information in consequence of this Debate coming on, and I am informed that, approximately, seventy-eight members are receiving unemployed benefit, in consequence of the disturbances at Belfast; that members have left Belfast, and that it is difficult to trace actually how many are affected by these occurrences. It is unfair, not only to peaceful citizens in Belfast but to those who have gone from this country and have got rooted more or less in that city with their wives and families that they should not be allowed to earn their bread in peace.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  Class IV.

    EDUCATION (IRELAND).
    Resolution reported,
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,667,629, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st
    2150
    day of March 1913, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
    [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1912, cols. 1789–1790.]
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
    I must say that it is impossible for any Irishman to be satisfied with the present condition of education in Ireland. Most of us will agree that there is need for a thorough reorganisation of the whole system. To my mind, the first step to this reform would be the establishment of an Irish Education Department that would be responsible for all branches of education. That is a matter which, I suppose, cannot be, discussed upon this Vote, but I may venture to hope that we shall not have to wait much longer for a Minister with sufficient courage to take in hand the solution of this problem. Of course, I am quite prepared to hear hon. Members opposite say that the deficiencies of Irish education can be remedied by an Irish Parliament, but we deny that altogether, and at the proper time we shall be ready to develop that part of our case against Home Rule. Perhaps I may be permitted to make three observations with reference to the suggestion that all questions of the improvement of education should be relegated to a Home Rule Parliament. In the first place, I do not believe that we shall see an Irish Parliament in our time. In the second place, any Irish Parliament would under present conditions be an entirely Nationalist body; and therefore it could not deal with education in such a way as to command the confidence of the minority. In the third place, Home Rule would simply increase and accentuate the present difficulty which arises mainly from the want of sufficient money. That is the point to which I desire to direct the attention of the Government and of the Committee on this occasion. We want more money for Irish education, and I submit that we need only compare this Vote with the corresponding Vote for Scotland to realise that Ireland is fairly entitled to claim a considerable increase in the present Grants for education. I admit there is room for some difference of opinion as to the actual amount which Ireland should receive, be-

    2151
    cause of the difficulty of making a true comparison. I believe it is approximately correct to say that whilst in Scotland the Parliamentary Grant for education amounts to 10s. 6d. per head of the population, in Ireland the amount voted by Parliament is only about 8s. 4d. per head—that is to say, if Ireland received education Grants in proportion to population on the same scale as Scotland, the Irish Education Vote would amount to a total of £2,310,000, or £475,000 more than the present Estimate. I do not wish to put Ireland's claim at too high a figure, but, after all allowances have been made, I think the provision for Irish education ought to be increased by at least £350,000 a year.
    I should like to know if we are to have the support of the Nationalist Members in pressing the claim upon the Government. I need hardly point out that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have a special responsibility in this matter. They are consenting parties to a Home Rule Bill which proposes to stereotype the provision for Irish education at the amount which represents the actual cost at the time of the passing of the Act. The cost of Irish education rises automatically every year by about £15,000, principally on account of salaries. Therefore, if the Grants were fixed at the present amounts, it follows that the Irish Parliament would not be endowed with sufficient money to maintain the education services at their present level, and there would be no provision whatever for their development. Dr. Starkie, the present Commissioner of Education in Ireland, has recently dealt with this matter in an address which he delivered to the Irish Technical Congress, and which I have no doubt has not escaped the attention of the Nationalist Members or the Government. Dr. Starkie says:—
    "If the education Grants are stereotyped at their present figure. the path of progress will be effectually blocked for a generation."
    From the Nationalist point of view, therefore, there is every reason why they should unite with us to get from the Treasury the amount to which I submit Ireland is justly entitled. They have a power which we do not possess. They are able to insist upon this provision being made. If they do not make use of their power and get the money which Ireland needs for educational purposes, all I can say is that Irish people will have a heavy score to settle with them hereafter. I want to
    2152
    draw the attention of the Chief Secretary and of the Committee to several matters which give point to our demand for an increase in the present Estimate. I take, first, the condition of the school-houses, and I ask the attention of the Committee to a brief extract which I will read from the Report of the Commissioners of Education for 1909–10. The Report says:—
    "In many of the cases where new school-houses are still required, the existing buildings are mere hovels, some have earthen floors and thatched or broken roofs, unceiled within; and others are badly lighted and ventilated, possessing insufficient floor and cubic space for the number in attendance, and destitute of any sanitary arrangements."
    That indicates a condition of affairs which calls urgently for a remedy, and what is required is a considerable increase in the amount available for building Grants. Last year, as a result of a great deal of pressure, the Treasury were induced to consent to an additional amount of £108,000 being allocated for building Grants, but very much more than that is required. The Commissioners point out in their last Annual Report that—
    "the new Grant is quite insufficient to meet the many applications for new buildings that we receive almost daily, and, unless considerably augmented in the next and subsequent years, will be found entirely inadequate to bring the school buildings of this country to a satisfactory standard of educational efficiency and hygienic comfort."
    It is also Dr. Starkie's opinion that—
    "in order to rebuild some hundreds of schools which are a disgrace to civilisation, and a positive danger to the health of the public, about £100,000 a year would be necessary for the next five or six years."
    I come next to the question of heating and cleaning the school-houses, in which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Down (Captain Craig) has taken so much interest. We have succeeded, after prolonged efforts, in getting a Grant for this purpose, and a sum of £21,000 is included in the present Estimates. It must not be supposed that those who are concerned in the management of the schools are ungrateful, but I cannot say we are satisfied with the provision that has been made. It will defray half the cost of the annual whitewashing of the school premises and the necessary cleansing of the out-offices, in addition to the winter heating; but it does not include any provision for the daily cleaning of the school premises, which remains in many cases a burden upon the teachers. We also want increased Grants for medical inspection, for evening continuation classes, and for practical instruction such as woodwork and gardening. I simply mention these requirements in passing because I

    2153
    want to refer more particularly to certain grievances of the national school teachers. There are three questions which have given rise to a considerable amount of irritation among the teachers of Ireland, and I think it would be in the best interests of education that those matters should be settled without further delay, and I would like to press them specially on the attention of the Chief Secretary. The first matter is one which affects all the teachers, and it relates to the payment of their salaries. They are now paid quarterly, which is a most inconvenient arrangement, especially for those with families. The teachers have asked for many years that they should receive their salaries monthly, but up to the present time it has been found impossible to overcome the objections of the Treasury.
    I think the difficulties in the way of making the change have been grossly exaggerated. All that is necessary is to provide in the Estimates of this year for the payment of fourteen months' salaries instead of twelve, that is to say, to bring into this financial year the sum of £177,000 which under the present system of quarterly payments would not be paid until the beginning of next year. It affects this year's Estimates only, it is not a permanent addition to the Vote. The Treasury have assumed if salaries are paid monthly that the augmentation Grant must also be paid monthly, but that does not follow at all. There is no reason why the augmentation Grant should not be continued to be paid in a lump sum at the end of the year. I imagine if the teachers got their salaries monthly they would be satisfied, and they would probably regard it as an advantage to receive their share of the augmentation Grant in one substantial payment at the end of the year. The Treasury, I understand, assert that this change would entail an additional cost of over £5,000. I venture to submit that that is an exaggerated estimate, and, remembering what the Chief Secretary stated on this point when the matter was referred to a year ago, I think the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to agree with me. The right hon. Gentleman then held out hopes that this grievance would be remedied in a short time. The Chief Secretary said:—
    "The Treasury agree that this is a wrong which should be remedied. They make no provision, however, in regard to this present year, but they hope to be able to do so on some very early opportunity, and I hope they may next year be able to provide whatever money is necessary to secure that the teachers' salaries shall be paid monthly."
    2154
    I cannot find that any provision has been made in this year's Estimates to remedy this grievance, and I think we are really entitled to ask the Chief Secretary to explain how it is that these expectations have not been fulfilled. There are two other grievances to which I want to invite the attention of the Chief Secretary. They affect only a limited number of teachers, but I think the whole profession is united in the desire that they should be remedied. In the first place, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether anything has been done to improve the position of "ungraded teachers." The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt remember that the case of those teachers was brought to his notice when this Vote was under discussion last year, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke then as to an inquiry which was proceeding into the circumstances. I do not think it is necessary I should enter into a full discussion upon this question, seeing that the whole case was fully explained in the House last year. But I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what decision has been arrived at in reference to those teachers. I come to another question which I have frequently brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary during the last few years. I refer to the grievance which has been known as "paper promotion." The number of teachers actually concerned is not very large, but I do not know any question which has aroused such feeling among the whole body of teachers as this subject has aroused. I must say from my own examination of the facts that I consider the teachers are thoroughly justified in the indignation, and the very proper indignation, which they have expressed at the action of the Treasury. I do not wish to detain the Committee longer than is necessary, but I may be allowed to state the facts of this case.
    As most of the Committee are aware, the national teachers are divided into grades, and they are promoted from one grade to another, according to merit and length of service. Under the most favourable circumstances a teacher has to serve for upwards of thirty years before reaching the highest grade, and no one who has any knowledge of the salaries paid to Irish national teachers will assert that the best paid amongst them are sufficiently remunerated for the important work they have to perform. I ask the Committee is it possible to imagine anything more annoying to a teacher who has slowly climbed the ladder of promo-

    2155
    tion than to find on reaching the top that the increased salary which he has earned by long and continuous effort is denied to him by a rule of the Treasury? Yet that is what has happened to a number of teachers during the last three or four years. The Treasury have imposed an arbitrary restriction upon the number of teachers in the highest grade who can receive the salary which is proper to that rank. The consequence is that teachers are promoted in status without being able to secure the pecuniary advantages which they have earned by their industry and capacity. When we look at the amount which is at stake the action of the Treasury seems to be paltry in the extreme. I believe I am right in saying that it will cost less than £1,000 per year to redress this grievance, and it will be worth considerably more than that sum to get rid of a source of annoyance and resentment. I have had many letters from teachers on this subject during the last two years, and one who has written to me in the last few days illustrates the hardship by a reference to his own case. He says:—
    "I have been a principal teacher since 1875, and I attained my promotion to the first grade on the 1st April, 1911. I was then told I must wait for the increased salary until a vacancy occurred in the first grade numbers, although I have to pay my pension premium upon the highest scale."
    This teacher is in his thirty-seventh year of service, and owing to this rule of the Treasury he is refused an increment which would amount in all to how much? To 5s. a week! Another teacher, in my own Constituency, has written to me with reference to the inconsistencies and inequalities which arise from the operation of this rule. He writes:—
    "We find that teachers whoso length of service was less than eighteen years received from the date of promotion in 1907–8 the increase in salary, whilst men with twenty years' service and upwards were denied it in 1910 and 1911; in fact, several of the men affected have between thirty and forty years' service, and although they have fulfilled the same conditions as those of 1907 and 1908, they have been deprived of sums varying from £7 to £17."
    I believe the sympathies of the Chief Secretary are with the teachers in this matter, and in reply to a question last July the right hon. Gentleman stated:—
    "The whole subject is having my most careful consideration, with a view, if possible, of having it placed on a clear and satisfactory basis."
    In March this year the right hon. Gentleman informed me that—
    "the question of increasing the number of teachers in the first grade is at present before the Treasury."
    I hope we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman to-day that in future all effi-
    2156
    cient teachers who comply with the conditions of service as laid down by the Commissioners will receive the increases of salary to which they are entitled.
    I want to turn for a few minutes to what I suppose is the most important and the most urgent question connected with Irish education at the present time. I refer to the need for the organisation and improvement of secondary education. That is a very large question, and I imagine it will not be possible to deal with it as a whole until there has been a thorough inquiry by a competent authority. It is part of my purpose to-day to urge that such an inquiry should be set on foot without delay. In the meantime there are one or two questions which arise directly out of this Vote to which I want to direct the attention of the House. The Commissioners of National Education state in their last Report that for nine years they have been pressing upon successive Governments the necessity of establishing a system of higher elementary schools, but so far no result has attended their efforts. Dr. Starkie, the Resident Commissioner of Education, who has very definite ideas as to the type of school which is required, stated recently, in an address to the Irish Technical Congress, that the controlling aim of these schools would be to prepare boys and girls for entrance to technical schools. They would be continuation schools in the true sense of the word, in which the children would be taught to apply the knowledge gained in the elementary schools to practical purposes, and in which they would receive hand and eye training that would be of infinite value to them in after-life. Schools of this type are to be found in Scotland, and I think there is every reason to believe that if they were established in Ireland they would fill a very useful place in the scheme of education. All that is required to enable a beginning to be made in this direction is an increased Grant from the Treasury of some £4,000 or £5,000 a year. It seems unaccountable that the Commissioners should have been trying for nine years, without success, to get this small additional Grant from the Treasury, having regard to the valuable results which might reasonably be expected to accrue from the establishment of these schools. I should like the Chief Secretary to tell us, if he can, whether there is any probability of this question being settled in accordance with the desires of the Commissioners of national education?

    2157
    There is another matter connected with the development of secondary education, about which I think the House will expect some information to-day. I refer to the scheme of scholarships which the Chief Secretary sketched out last year. The right hon. Gentleman told us that:—
    "The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite willing this year to set apart a sum of money for intermediate education,"
    and he added that the money would be applied to the establishment of scholarships—
    "enabling boys to proceed from the primary to the secondary schools."
    We heard no more of that scheme last year, but early in the present year statements appeared which seemed to indicate that the Treasury had intervened and refused to sanction the scheme of scholarships, on the ground that the claim of the secondary school teachers for increased remuneration was more urgent. It appears that the matter has been arranged with the Treasury, because within the last few days a Supplementary Estimate has been presented for a Grant of £10,000 for scholarships from primary schools. That is satisfactory so far as it goes; but I think we should all like to hear from the Chief Secretary whether there is any prospect, near or remote, of the grievances of the secondary school teachers being dealt with. I do not think that anyone can reasonably deny that the position of these teachers requires amelioration. The present average salary of lay secondary teachers is: for men, £82 a year, and for women, £47; and there is absolutely no provision for their old age. That obviously represents a condition of affairs which calls urgently for improvement. What to my mind is no less clear is that a very considerable Grant will be required if any substantial improvement is to be effected. In the Debate last year the Chief Secretary stated that—
    "If the sum set apart for scholarships is more than necessary for the purpose, it may be used to raise the status of secondary schools, which can only be done by raising the present status of the teachers in those schools."
    The right hon. Gentleman, during the same Debate, held out hopes that Ireland would receive from Imperial funds a sum proportional to the £750,000 per annum, which is paid in capitation fees to the secondary schools in Scotland, England, and Wales. It was implied that this sum would be expended in improving the position of the assistant masters in intermediate schools. What has occurred to prevent the realisation of these hopes?
    2158
    I do not know what explanation the Chief Secretary will offer, but it seems to me that this sudden tightening of the purse-strings of the Treasury is the direct outcome of the Home Rule Bill. It is obviously to the interest of the British Treasury to keep down the cost of Irish education to the lowest possible limits. So far as we who sit on these benches are concerned, we are determined to protest against a policy which would involve the starving, as we believe, of Irish education for years to come.
    Mr. DILLON: I beg to second the Amendment. The hon. Baronet, at the opening of his speech, said he would like to reorganise and restart the whole system under which education is conducted in Ireland. I heartily share that view, and that is one of the reasons why I am so strongly in favour of Home Rule. I put a question to him as to what Minister in Ireland he would make responsible for education? He did not answer. That is the impasse that has prevented us on these benches from getting on with the task, because we are met with that impasse, which is the crux of the question as to who is the Minister in Ireland to whom we could assign the responsibility for education. On another and more favourable occasion I shall be very happy to debate that point with the hon. Baronet. To-night we are debating this Vote under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, and I must condense my observations within the shortest possible limit. I shall say first a few sentences on the question on which the hon. Baronet concluded his speech; that is the position of secondary education. Nothing can be done under the present system of secondary education, I fear, except to make a very humble beginning. Certain promises and expectations were held out by the Chief Secretary in the Debate last year, and I rejoice to observe that the first of these promises—namely, that relating to scholarships, has been redeemed.
    With reference to the £10,000 for scholarships, I have only this to say, that I protest at this earliest opportunity against that Vote being placed under the Vote for primary education in Ireland. It is properly speaking not a part of the primary system; it is part of the secondary or university system. I shall request that next year it should be placed under its proper head. It is something more than a mere question of paper arrangement, because it would be a manifest outrage if it were to be left entirely to the National

    2159
    Board to control the policy. As I indicated last year, it ought to be left to some body representing the intermediate Board and the University. The National Board should also be represented on the Government Body, and so should the independent primary schools in Ireland. These form a very important section of Irish schools. There should be absolute security that the examinations will be conducted correctly and that in certain matters there should be no discrimination against the Christian Brothers and other important primary schools in Ireland; that they should have fair play with the national schools. I hope the Chief Secretary will be able to-night to give us some outline of the scheme of the Government for the distribution of the £10,000, assigned annually for these scholarships. I am very glad to take this opportunity of thanking him for securing the Grant, which I think will have a most important influence on Irish education. I cannot go into the matter as fully as I should like to-night; but I desire to say that much before I pass from the subject to the question of the provision of secondary teachers.
    I need not go over the ground of last year, or repeat what has been said by the hon. Baronet; but it is perfectly true that there is no body of men in the United Kingdom or Ireland who are so evilly treated as the teachers in the secondary schools in Ireland. I note from the speech of the Chief Secretary, from which the hon. Baronet made a quotation, that he is entirely of that opinion. He has earnestly worked and done his best to make at least a beginning in the redemption of these teachers from a state of sweating and bondage which I do not think any teachers in recent times have been subjected to. I noticed that the other day a deputation of German teachers was over in this country and Professor Sadler, of Manchester, delivered a lecture to them. In the "Times" of yesterday he described his. interview with these German teachers. They expressed their astonishment that in this country secondary teachers were not provided with an adequate salary and with pensions. It is a notorious fact that Germany, which is not so wealthy as England, treats her teachers better than England. What would these German teachers have said if they had crossed over to Ireland; because the English teacher is a millionaire as compared with the Irish teacher both as regards salary, position, and
    2160
    tenure, and in everything else he is on an infinitely higher scale. Therefore I would make an appeal to the Chief Secretary himself as to whether or not he is in a position to redeem the hopes—I will not say the pledges, but the strong hopes—which he held out to the secondary teachers that something would be done to improve their condition as a basis for future improvement.
    I should like very much to say a great deal more on this question of secondary education, but I am very desirous of being brief, and therefore I will turn to the question of primary education. In the Debate last year three pledges were given by the Chief Secretary. The first one was that the question of the heating and lighting would be settled; secondly, that the question—an urgent one—of preventing assistant teachers being dismissed when the average of their pupils fell below fifty should be settled; the third point was that the pension question, which had been advocated so many years, should be settled on a fair and equitable basis. I am bound to acknowledge that these pledges have been redeemed. First of all, the question of heating and lighting has been settled. I do not say that the Grant made has satisfied everybody, but it was the Grant promised by the Chief Secretary. He promised £21,000 per year on condition that the school managers of the localities provided an equal sum. That was the promise, which might or might not be entirely satisfactory, but what was promised has been done. Then there is "the swing of ten," which is a matter of vital importance to a considerable body of assistant teachers, and what was asked here has been granted. With regard to the pensions no useful purpose would be served by debating matters to-night. The question is now sub judice, and in the hands of the actuaries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a very substantial Grant, though we do not yet know to what extent it will meet the reasonable demands of the teachers. Until the actuarial report is issued there is nothing to be gained by debating this subject. Therefore I shall pass on to deal very briefly with some more urgent grievances which still remain unredressed. They have already been to a large extent taken and explained by the hon. Baronet, and that relieves me of the necessity of going into the detail in regard to same.
    First of all, I want to say in support of the claim of the national teachers to

    2161
    have these grievances remedied, and remedied immediately, that we have carefully examined the proportion between the Grants for primary education in Great Britain and various parts of Great Britain and Ireland. Taking all the Grants of an Educational character for Scotland, including museums, libraries, universities, secondary and primary education, and comparing them in a lump sum with the Grants to Ireland, you find that Scotland gets 130 pence, or 10s. 10d., per head of the population, whereas Ireland only gets 110 pence, or 9s. 2d., per head of the population, and if Ireland got a proportionate Grant to what Scotland gets she would be receiving £368,000 a year more than she now gets. The figures, as compared with England and Wales, are slightly less. If we got a Grant in Ireland for educational purposes equivalent to the Grant for England and Wales, we would get about £250,000 a year more on the population basis, which is the basis accepted as just by the Treasury. If we got an equivalent calculated on basis of population as compared with England and Wales, we would get about £250,000 a year more for education; therefore we have a just right without exceeding our proportion of educational Grants, to claim that the remedy of some of the grievances which I am going to submit to the House, and some of which are very expensive.
    I do not intend to go at any great length into these figures, but when the hon. Baronet stated in the course of his speech that we, the members of the Nationalist party, have such enormous and unlimited powers that we have only got to say the word and order the Treasury to give out any quantity of money we require, I remind hon. Members that the time was when for ten or fifteen years their party was in power, and these were the very worst years for Irish education that I remember. No money could be got at all. The building Grant was taken away, and the arrears now so bitterly and justly complained of in regard to the building of schools accumulated during the office of the Friends of hon. Members from Ulster above the Gangway. During that period their Friends also took away the Grant for Irish, and we could get no money. We were then in Opposition, and did our best, but we got very little support from Irish Unionist Members who then had the power to go to the Treasury and take
    2162
    them by the throat. It is not easy to hold the Treasury by the throat.
    Mr. JOHN GORDON: You could have got more money.
    Mr. DILLON: You got nothing at all.
    Mr. GORDON: Oh, we did.
    Mr. DILLON: No, and we have succeeded in getting back the building Grant and very considerable arrears of the building Grant; the fees for Irish restored, the extra Grants for salaries, £114,000 a year, we have got the heating and lighting question settled, which was in controversy for years, and we have got a very substantial Grant, which, if it is not sufficient may go a long way towards settling the question of pensions, which has been a subject of agitation for eighteen years, and we have got new pensions. I will just mention three grievances which I think are of extreme urgency and might be reasonably settled. I take first the monthly payment of salaries. The hon. Baronet stated the case for that pretty fully, and I have little to add. I quite admit the Chief Secretary carefully guarded himself against giving an absolute pledge, but he undoubtedly did say that he had the greatest possible hope, and every grounds for hope, that that question would be settled this year. We were told when we pressed that question last year that it would be a matter of £500,000 down and £5,000 a year for extra secretarial work in paying the salaries monthly. I entirely agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Armagh in his views on that subject. I do not believe it would take £5,000 a year in office expenses to pay these salaries monthly. I think it is absurd.
    I am quite convinced £2,000 a year would do it. As for the Grant necessary to start the payment of the salaries, it is not an annual Grant, but only requires to be done once, and I am instructed by the teachers that they are quite willing to assent to a compromise by which the sum to be voted in the Estimates this year in order to institute the payment of the monthly salaries—and once instituted it will go on without any extra expense to the Treasury—that the sum necessary would be only about £130,000, because I think the teachers would be prepared to compromise their claim by asking only that portion of their annual income, which is called salary to be paid to them monthly. The salary of Irish teachers is divided under three heads. First there is the salary

    2163
    proper, then the capitation grant, and then the augmentation grant. These are paid at long intervals, and if the teachers got their salaries paid monthly they would be content to compromise the matter, and I am instructed it would only take about £130,000 voted for one year to institute this system. Of course, there is a very strong case for this. It is very hard in the case of young teachers who come out of the training college, when they get an appointment that they have to wait for a period of three months before they get a penny salary at all. They have to borrow money or it has to be provided by their parents. The system is a hard one and I think in view of the fact that the teachers in this country are paid monthly and that even Ministers of the Crown are paid monthly, I think the teachers have a strong claim that they should be treated on the same basis.
    The next point is one that I cannot for a moment conceive the Government will refuse to settle this year. It is the case of what is known as the maternity rule. I must lay special stress upon this point because the hon. Baronet, the Member for Mid-Armagh, did not mention it amongst the points he pressed for settlement. The maternity rule is a rule started quite recently by the National Board in Ireland by which a married teacher in Ireland—and there are a great many of them—in the event of child-birth has to retire from the school for a period of three months, and to provide and pay a substitute for that period. That is a rule quite recently instituted, and it is, I think, a very inhuman and from every point of view an unwise rule. When the Government decided to admit married women to teach in schools such a rule as this is nothing short of an outrage. I am informed by many people in authority it would a very great mistake to deny the right to married women to teach in schools. They are very successful and the people rather like them. Up to April, 1911, no such rule existed, and the teachers were entitled to a month's leave, and they returned to their teaching at the end of the month. I am not prepared to say that it would not be a proper rule to extend that period to two months, but I think it is a cruel and indefensible proposition to make the woman teacher pay for her substitute. Really their salaries are small enough, and to put them to that expense at that period of their life is an extraordinary
    2164
    perversion of what ordinary humanity would suggest. Here you have several thousand female teachers who enter the service of the Board on the distinct understanding that no such rule existed, and no such rule was ever thought of before, and the Board without making any allowance for vested rights, inaugurated this extraordinary rule and applied it to the existing teachers who came in under the old system. That is an extraordinary piece of injustice quite apart from the merits of the rule, and even if the rule was a fair one all existing teachers should be exempted from it. I suggest on this point that the period should be made two months, and that the teacher should not be called upon to pay a substitute.
    9.0 P.M.
    I am informed by those who have made a careful calculation that the expense of this change would only be about £5,000 a year. There is this to be always remembered in mentioning these extra sums, that as a matter of fact the Board of Education in Ireland are never able to spend all the money they get, and they frequently return between £10,000 and £20,000 to the Treasury; so that many of these reforms could be carried into effect without an extra penny of expense by stopping this practice of returning the balances to the Treasury at the end of the year. I will take a case which appeared on the Notice Paper to-day. I am dwelling upon this claim at greater length because the hon. Baronet did not mention it. A question was put by the hon. Member for West Meath asking whether the Chief Secretary's attention had been directed to a school taught by Mrs. O'Connell, who had inserted advertisements in various newspapers endeavouring to get a substitute to take her place under this rule, and she had failed to do so, and asking whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that although she did her best to obey the rule, the Commissioners refused to alter their decision and continue to withhold Mrs. O'Connell's salary. During that period the inspector reported that the efficiency of this particular school was excellent, and simply because this unfortunate woman endeavoured to obey the rule and could not get a substitute, she will not now be paid for the work which she actually did, because she worked within three months of the birth of her child That is cruel and unreasonable, and the working of this rule has shocked popular sentiment in Ireland to a very great extent. I feel that when

    2165
    the attention of the Government is drawn to this matter the Chief Secretary will meet us on that point. Another point I wish to allude to is the case of the assistant teachers, and the system of promotion. Under the old system, before the change of 1900 was made, the assistant teacher could get up to be in the first class, and that brought about a spirit of emulation and ambition amongst the teachers which undoubtedly had an enormous effect in keeping them active and efficient. I remember myself in the old days the teachers in Ireland were extraordinarily ambitious under the old system, and I have known them work half the night in their eagerness to obtain promotion, and get on in their profession. Under the new system of grading, however, no assistant teacher can get beyond the third or lower grade, no matter how excellent, and they can get no promotion as long as they are assistants. That is a very stupid system which has had a most deadening effect upon the ambitious younger men in the teaching profession, and I believe it has injured the whole morality of the profession.
    I have here a cable showing the position of the assistants in 1900 before a change was made. There were ninety-one assistants in the first of the first-class, 277 in the first class, and 1,553 in the second class. Now no assistant can get beyond the third or the lowest class of all. The rule which the Board passed is 103c, under which, recognising the deadening effect of this system, they made it a general rule that assistant teachers are ineligible for promotion beyond the third grade, except in exceptional circumstances and by special order of the Commission. How does that rule work? It sounds somewhat satisfactory; but what a mockery it is when we find that in twelve years two assistants only have been promoted under this rule! I need not comment upon that. The result is that that rule is a dead letter, and it has had a most deadly effect on the assistant. I have the gravest possible doubts as to the soundness of the new system of grading as compared with the old system, under which young and ambitious men at an early stage could get to the top of their profession. That is too wide a question to take up now, and I only wish to urge upon the Chief Secretary that he should look into this question of the promotion of the assistants in a sympathetic spirit in order to see whether something cannot be done to remove this blot, which must have a most deadly effect on the assistant himself.
    2166
    I must confess that I was not quite so sympathetic with another matter, but, after careful inquiry, I am now strongly of opinion that something needs to be done in regard to it. Under the new system of grading, the promotion of the teachers depends upon the reports of the inspector as to the efficiency of the school. In the old days a man got his promotion by examination, and the examinations were exceedingly severe. Now under the new system promotion is, I believe, entirely by reports on the general efficiency of the schools. A bitter complaint has been made that there are certain inspectors—this is not at all against the main body of inspectors, in whom the teachers have confidence—and human nature being what it is it is exactly what one would expect, who are harsh, ill-dispositioned, and cantankerous men. I do not believe you can find any body of men who have not one or two of that disposition amongst them. If one of these men comes into a district, he may destroy the record of teachers who for years have had excellent records, and the unfortunate teacher has no appeal of any sort or kind against this one individual. I think that is a very hard case-It is a very difficult case with which to deal, because you could not give to every teacher who was discontented with the report of the inspector the right to appeal; but I do say that under proper limitations, where a man has had a good record for two or three years, and where, without apparent cause, a new inspector comes along and marks him down bad, breaking his whole record and destroying his chances of promotion, he ought to have a chance and an appeal. All I ask the right hon. Gentleman is to say that in a case of that kind of teacher may have a right to appeal for another inspection, and I confidently say that would be only fairplay.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: I desire to lay special stress on the one important point, which, of course, must underlie any future reform in Irish education, and that is the question of more money. I see the Chief Secretary sympathises with that complaint, and I trust he will carry it forward. The hon. Baronet who opened this Debate stated very truly that, as compared with Scotland, Ireland should get at least £350,000 or £400,000 more. I put to the right hon. Gentleman some questions a few months ago on that point, and he tried to defend the Treasury by saying the Scotch Education Vote included a number of other things that were not

    2167
    included in the Irish Education Vote. I have taken the trouble to look the matter up, and I find, taking into account the money the Department gets for technical and agricultural instruction and adding that to the Irish Education Vote, and taking the Scotch Estimates and the monies given for agricultural and technical education and adding them to the Scotch Education Vote, that instead of it improving the case for the Treasury the case is made still worse. I find, comparing the two, that Scotland does undoubtedly get considerably more than Ireland gets, no matter what excuses may be given. It is true, that for primary education we may not have as good a case as we have by taking education as a whole, because the Scotch Education Vote does include a Grant of £230,000, which is devoted to secondary or higher grade education, and there is no Grant whatever in the Irish Vote for any such purpose. That given. It is true that for primary education in the country must be taken as a whole. Taking primary, secondary, university, and technical education In Scotland, and taking the same in Ireland, and comparing the two, Ireland is denied at least £400,000 a year.
    I say the necessity for getting this money is even greater in Ireland than it is in Scotland or England. Ireland is an exceedingly poor country. Supposing we had the power, which we have not, of levying rates for the purpose of improving Irish education, the rateable valuation of Ireland is small, the capacity of the people to bear rates is certainly limited, and they are already sufficiently taxed to carry on the purposes for which the rates are raised. Therefore, I say, Ireland, whose educational system has been neglected for centuries, whose population is poor, and who has no educational endowments, has a far stronger claim for additional educational Grants than cither Scotland or England. We demand before it is too late that we should at least get what we are entitled to on the basis of what Scotland gets or on the basis of what England gets. It is absolutely useless for us to demand reforms in the way of monthly payments for teachers, better salaries for teachers, and various other things, if we are met at the very beginning with a refusal to give us the amount of money the educational system demands and which it is right and just we should get. The right hon. Gentleman has performed an exceedingly excellent work for
    2168
    Irish education, and I am satisfied that when he leaves our country his name will be remembered and cherished by coming generations of Irish people for the excellent work he has done, starting with the university system and coming down to the primary system, where he has made considerable changes and instituted useful reforms. He has made what all children of the primary schools must feel to be a small but splendid change. Some of us can remember trudging to school with sods of turf under our arms. The sods of turf the children took to school were the only means of getting a fire and keeping the school comfortably warm. The continuance of that system until last year was a disgrace to civilisation, and certainly did not reflect credit on the country which had the conduct of educational matters in Ireland. I am proud to recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has changed that. Though the Grant may be insufficient, still I think it may do away with the system which made the poor, bare-footed little boy bring that sod of turf perhaps three or four miles.
    The right hon. Gentleman has done many other things to improve primary education, and I gladly recognise the work he has done. May I direct his attention more particularly to a few of the matters which have been already referred to. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that the assistant teacher in Ireland holds a very important position in the school. He is a trained teacher, just the same as the principal teacher. He has to pass the same examination in order to qualify for his certificate. He does the same work in the school as the principal teacher, with, of course, the slight difference of the supervision and general organisation of the school. Therefore, there is no distinction as to his capacity to teach or in the work he does in the school. On what ground can it be maintained that that man, trained, educated, and qualified, doing excellent and necessary work in the schools, is entitled only to be on the lowest grade of the educational ladder with the salary attaching to that grade? It is most unfair and unjust, and it must have the effect of preventing him taking a real interest in the work such as is necessary to make him a good teacher. Let him further recognise the importance of assistants in Irish primary education. There are about 5,000 assistant teachers in Ireland—about one-half of the teaching profession, and the number is increasing

    2169
    and will increase because of the tendency to amalgamate the schools. Let the assistant prepare himself for his work as he pleases, the only prospect before him is, that while he remains an assistant teacher, he will only be recognised as a third-rate teacher with the salary attaching to that grade. Would it not be reasonable to put before him some goal which would arouse his ambitions? Why not allow him to go on to the second grade, with the salary attaching to that grade, and then to the first grade even without the salary of that grade, should the finances be so stringent as to prevent the payment of the salary of that grade. At present you are doing considerable injury to one-half of the teachers in the profession and the school children are suffering because the teachers have no hope for the future.
    I do not wish to enter into the pension question, but, perhaps, the Chief Secretary will give some indication that it may be found possible to make any scheme that may be adopted restrospective. There are teachers who have served thirty-five years, who have blameless records and who, in consequence of broken health have had to leave the schools, and, after these many years of splendid service to the State, doing the highest possible work men can do, are now trying to eke out a meagre existence on a pension of £25 per year. There are, I admit, not many of these men, but surely it would not be too much to ask the Chief Secretary to include them in any scheme that may be framed. This present position is certainly not a credit to Irish education. One word on the question of inspection to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, referred. I am afraid we have too much inspection in our system of primary and secondary education, and I would suggest that, instead of more inspectors, we should have the schools staffed by good men, who should be well paid, and upon whom should be thrown the responsibility of forming the characters of and educating the children. Let them do their life's work for love of their work, rather than through fear of the inspector, and then you will produce a better race of men and a better educated people. But if the unfortunate teacher is to feel, morning, noon and night, that he is under an inspector, with some whim or fad, who is responsible for the whole of his future prospects, what is his position? He is a human being, naturally he will try to find out the whims of the inspector and
    2170
    to satisfy those whims, instead of educating the children so as to become men who will become a credit to the nation and an advantage to themselves.
    We are overdone with inspection and examination. There is no individuality left to the men themselves, and their hearts are frightened out of them by this wretched system of what one may almost call "spying." I have been a teacher myself. I know what the trouble is. I know how demoralising these things are to the good teacher, and how impossible it is for him to do really excellent work, which, teachers would naturally aspire to do if only proper encouragement were afforded them. I trust some real control will be exercised over the inspectors to see that they do not hamper the work of good teachers in our primary schools. I do not wish to say too much about our secondary system of education. As a boy whose only opportunities were found in the primary school, I naturally take great interest in seeing that better and more extended education is provided for the children of to-day. As compared with Scotland, there is no such thing as secondary education in Ireland. There is absolutely nothing of the kind. In Scotland, any child can go to a neighbouring high school and demand secondary education free gratis and for nothing, and, should he live too far away from the secondary or higher school, the local education committee will provide bursaries—they did so to the amount of £150,000 last year—in order that advantage may be taken of that school. But the Irish child can do nothing of that kind. I am extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to carry out what we thought last year was a promise to do something more than merely establish the scholarships. They will do very little, and they are, I hope, only a small part of what in time will be a full and complete system. With regard to the teachers in the secondary schools, it is a cruel thing that men and women possessing splendid university degrees, men of fine character, doing excellent work for the country—it is a cruel thing that these men and women should be asked to do the highest work of the nation for salaries of from £80 to £100 per annum. Is that reasonable? Is it not admitted by everybody that it is a disgrace to any country, which should not be-continued. I am extremely sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to do more; but I hope he will be able to give

    2171
    us some indication that before very long he will make the position of the Irish secondary school teacher more secure and attach to it a better salary.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Hon. Members must remember that, although I am responsible in this House—and, indeed, am proud to be so—for education, I am not the Minister for Education in the sense of having control over the Department, although I occupy the useful position of money-getter, and consequently am a person with whom the education authorities would wish to keep on good terms. It must be remembered, too, that the Board of National Education and the Board of Intermediate Education are independent bodies, which carry on their work in their own way, and are not amenable to me in any shape or form. My authority over them only arises when a member dies or retires, and I then have the pleasing task of appointing his successor. It is really necessary to remember that, because that is my position. I do not wish to magnify or minimise it. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Lonsdale) started his speech by saying he wanted more money, and that there was not enough money obtained for Ireland to run intermediate, secondary, or primary education as it ought to be run, not only in a civilised country, but in a country in which, I am bound to say, education is highly appreciated. The only advantage in the present Irish system that I can see is that there are no education rates. Such a thing is unknown in Ireland and education is universally popular whereas in England, with which I have some connection, the higher the education rates become the greater becomes the unpopularity of education in that part of the world. It is not much of a consolation to offer my Irish friends, but it is some that, although they have not got an education rate, they have general popularity on the subject.
    Mr. BARRIE: We asked for a technical education rate.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I know that, but I was speaking of the larger rates which sometimes in England run to 1s. 2d. and 1s. 4d. in the £, chiefly for primary education. I agree that Ireland has not got enough money to make the proper provision which one would like to see made for education. The demands are very great, and all that any Chief Secretary can do during his office—I speak quite frankly—is to get as much as he can, feeling perfectly certain
    2172
    that whatever he gets will not in any way satisfy the general educational needs of the country. For example, take the higher grade schools, to which my friend, Dr. Starkie is greatly attached, and with regard to which I share his feelings. The hon. Baronet asked for £2,000 or £3,000 a year. That might start the system, but £45,000 a year would hardly meet its expenses when it was fairly started. It is a mistake for anyone to go to the Treasury and say this is only £2,000 a year. How could I or anybody with any acquaintance at all with the cost of education, particularly higher elementary schools, expect any Treasury official to believe that £2,000, £3,000, or even £4,000 a year would meet that demand. Therefore I have really to do the best I can from time to time. I am very much obliged to some of the speakers for the kindly manner in which they have recognised that although I have not got as much as they would like me to get I have got a good deal. When the time comes for my account to be taken—I do not expect to be remembered for centuries, even by the most affectionate people—by people who take an interest in me after I am dead, if they ever do such a thing, they will be able to place to my credit not only lighting and cleansing but the present Augmentation Fund, which bears my name, and many other matters upon which I will not touch. Let me see what is demanded of me. The first point is the monthly payment of salaries. I quite agree, everybody agrees, and the Treasury agree that the salaries of teachers ought to be paid monthly. They are the sort of persons whose interests are of that kind that they should be paid monthly. They are paid monthly in England, and ought to be paid monthly in Ireland. About that we are all agreed. The only question is on what annual Estimate for the first time is the very considerable sum of about £170,000, or a little loss or more, to be placed in order to set this wrong right. That is the difficulty I am in. Did I want nothing else, were I able to concentrate my demands upon that, I should get it, but I have not got it so far.
    Mr. LYNCH: Does that represent the capitalisation of the total amount required?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, I have explained to the House several times how the matter stands. The salaries of teachers are now paid in the first month of the quarter following that in which they are due. In

    2173
    the first financial year in which monthly payments are adopted it will be necessary to provide for the last quarter of the previous year, that is, in April, and also for the eleven months from April to February in the current year, making fourteen months in all. That means two months' salary in addition to the twelve to be provided annually. That is what is required. It is said to amount to £177,825. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) made the suggestion that by agreement with the teachers that amount might be reduced to £130,000 if they agreed to take their salary and not to take their share under the Birrell Grant. Then it is said that the clerical expenditure would be somewhat increased from what it is now. It is a substantial sum to get the Treasury to put down in one year's Estimate. No doubt it would be gratifying to be able to point out that it would not occur again, but there it is, and it has been the obstacle in my way. I do not defend the practice of quarterly payments, neither do the Treasury; but, having begun upon a bad system, the rules of arithmetic are such that it requires that addition to one Estimate. I am still pegging away, and I hope to be in a position at some moment or other to get the Treasury to place upon the Estimates that sum.
    Then there are the questions of the under-graded teachers and paper promotion. These are undoubted grievances under which some teachers labour. I have done my best to set the thing right, but it is very difficult. The Treasury decline to allow the grades to be indefinitely increased. I think it was a pity that the National Commissioners, although they have their way of dealing with the Treasury and of putting pressure upon them—I think it was a mistake on their part that they should not have called the teachers' attention to the fact that there was this Treasury Regulation. They did not do anything of the kind, and proceeded themselves to give the teachers the grade, without telling them that that promotion did not carry with it the right to the extra salary because they had not secured Treasury sanction on that point. There were a certain number of teachers in that position, either forty-eight or fifty-four, whom I saw. I did my very best for them. I got the Treasury to agree that in their cases they would set the wrong right. Then I found that I was speaking without the permission of the National Board, and the
    2174
    Board, when I went to them and said that the Treasury would get rid of the particular grievance in regard to these forty-eight or fifty-four persons, said that they would not take payment in piecemeal in that way, and that the Treasury ought to alter their rule and allow them to increase the grades indefinitely. Therefore they would not remove this partial grievance by allowing these persons to be dealt with. That is how the matter stands. I think it is a great pity I was not allowed to have my own way with regard to that matter. It is still outstanding as a matter to be settled. The hon. Baronet went on to speak about secondary education and expressed the opinion that there ought to be a general inquiry into its position. I have already explained that secondary education does not count in these Votes at all. Nothing is given by this House. Secondary education in Ireland lives like a gentleman on its means. It has the interest of £1,000,000 of the Church fund, and it has now a stereotyped amount in place of what it used to receive from whisky money.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It ought not to be stereotyped.
    Mr. BIRRELL: It is, but only temporarily, subject to the whole consideration of the question after the Commission which is now sitting has reported. At all events that is all it has got, and it therefore does not come under the purview of this House at all. It is managed by a Board who spend their income according to statutory provisions which tie their hands up very harshly by compelling them to spend almost the whole of their money in a very expensive way on a perpetual series of examinations, beginning at the very early age of thirteen. These examinations are a very expensive, and, in my judgment, a very unsatisfactory method of securing good schools, which, after all, is the one thing that you desire to have in secondary education. It is not a question of pampering one clever boy or girl and having their pictures in all the papers, and having £4 or £5 prizes. You want to secure that there are good schools. In order to have good secondary schools you must have good teachers, and in order to have good teachers you must have, I do not say good salaries, but decent salaries, and you must also have a respectable tenure so that a person who is a secondary teacher may lay claim at all events to be a person of independence and not a mere

    2175
    drudge or slave of people who can dismiss him without notice with a miserable average salary which the hon. Baronet put at £82. As everyone in Ireland knows, there is no occupation in life that you would not sooner recommend any friend of your own to adopt than that of a secondary teacher. I have striven hard, feeling very strongly upon this subject, and always feeling that to organise secondary education was one of the very best occupations that anybody could ever be engaged in either in England or in Ireland or anywhere else. That was the dictum of Matthew Arnold.
    That, of course, means money, money, money, and I have succeeded in obtaining from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I must say has a very warm corner in his heart for education and receives one with, I will not say welcome, but at all events with that reasonable amount of civility which one colleague should extend to another, by way of beginning—I do not say beginning from the point of view of the Treasury, but beginning this system in Ireland—he has agreed to allow me to have a sum of £40,000 a year to be distributed in a way which is to be settled by me in consultation, of course, with the proper authorities in Ireland. Of course there are conditions which I should certainly insist upon and which must be taken as part and parcel of the scheme. These conditions will indicate the sort of thing which we have in our mind. Each boys' school is to have not less than one registered lay assistant teacher, at a minimum salary of £120 a year for each forty pupils on the roll, and each girls' school is to have not less than one lay assistant teacher at a minimum salary of £80 a year for the same number of pupils on the roll. The other point is that these lay assistants should be entitled to six months' notice or six months' salary in the case of dismissal, except, of course, on account of grave misconduct. The third point, to which I attach enormous importance, though it will require legislation, as some of the other conditions also may, is that there should be a register of teachers. That is the only way in which you will raise this profession up and give it any degree of status. To begin with, you may have assistant teachers of a somewhat lower standard than you would wish, but for the future—and, after all, this thing only contemplates a happier future for secondary education in Ireland—it is
    2176
    most desirable that there should be a proper system of registering teachers on some educational basis. That is the sort of scheme that I have in view.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Is there any scheme of superannuation?
    Mr. BIRRELL: With only £40,000 at my disposal I am afraid I cannot pretend to establish any system which will secure these teachers proper superannuation allowances, but it is part and parcel of any rational system of secondary education that some such superannuation should exist. This is the very first stone, and necessarily a small one, in an edifice which is hereafter, under some regime or another, to be erected. Of course the House will notice that I have said this in regard to lay teachers. In Ireland the secondary schools have great advantages, which I am the last person to deny, in being able to call upon and secure the educational services of clerics or of persons in religious orders who, whatever you may think about their theology, are admirable teachers, and I am not in any way seeking-to disparage the advantages which may be derived in some way or other from having an ample supply of teachers of that order in these schools. But for my purpose and the purpose of this House, I am considering the raising of the status of the lay teacher. The status of the clergyman—the status of the man in religious orders—does not need to be raised. He has his status by virtue of the dedicating of his life to religious purposes. I am thinking of the Oliver Goldsmiths and persons of that sort—men of ability and of gifted teaching power in Ireland, who are willing to throw themselves into this profession, not in the hope of gaining large salaries, but simply in the hope of doing some good in a profession which they love, and receiving proper support and recognition from the State. This scheme I mention as being the foundation of a system of really good secondary education, and I believe honestly it is at all events the first attempt that has been made, and I hope that Ireland will recognise that it is a first step, and that we shall not be subject to much opposition. I have had long interviews in Dublin with teachers, clerical and lay, and head masters and under masters, and, I think, on the whole the conclusions we arrived at, although not final, were of a character which encourage me very much in laying this scheme before

    2177
    the House. The other regulation, which has regard to secondary education, related to the sum of £10,000, which does appear in the Supplementary Estimate with regard to scholarships for primary and secondary schools. I will not expatiate on that, for I have not time at present; but I may say at once that the object of this scheme is not by any means to add to the large class of persons now to be found in all educated countries who are tempted by bribes and small sums to proceed from primary to intermediate schools, and then to go on to universities where they may obtain a degree which, although their mothers and aunts may think a great deal of it, is, as every educated man knows, of no importance whatever except as indicating ability to get on in a profession, such as the teaching profession, where the competition is enormous. We do not want anything of that sort. On the other hand, we have got the University of Dublin, and we have now the National University and the University of Belfast, and we do think there should be access to these universities without class distinction and without any choice of one over another—according to the wish of the students or parents. There should be a way from the primary schools to the intermediate schools, in order that boys may avail themselves of the scholarships to the universities which the county council authorities are setting up under the Act by means of a rate. We want to fill the universities with the best class of boys, and therefore this small sum of £10,000 is to create scholarships, the value of which will probably be £20 for the day schools—£10 of which will be for school fees, and £10 for books and other expenses—and scholarships of £50, probably, at the boarding schools. These two sots of scholarships will enable boys of not more than thirteen years of age on 1st June to enter schools after their examination. The financial position of the parents has to be examined into. The children will be exposed to an examination over which I should like to exercise a greater measure of control than, I am afraid, it is possible for an individual to exercise.
    The object of the examination of children of thirteen ought to be to prove their intellectual capacity for school and college education rather than merely to ascertain how much the poor creatures happen to know when they are undergoing the examination. These scholarships will be tenable in suitable intermediate schools. The questions whether the
    2178
    schools are suitable, what is the number of teachers, and what is the equipment of the schools will have to be considered. The boys will proceed with their education at the intermediate school, and afterwards they may go on to a university if they desire to do so, and if they do not change their minds during the period they are at the intermediate school. These schemes I will publish, not as necessarily final and unalterable. Otherwise I will do my best to avail myself of the means at my command in the full confidence and belief that I and those associated with me will be able to produce something which, if not expected to last for ever, will establish a system for looking after the proper position and status of secondary schools, and also establish those scholarships to which I have referred.
    Mr. DILLON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to remind him of the maternity rule.
    Mr. BIRRELL: There has been a great deal of feeling about the maternity rule which was adopted by the Commissioners on 4th April, 1911. Under that rule married women teachers are required to absent themselves from their schools for three months continuously, during the period preceding and succeeding child-birth, and to provide teachers at their own expense to perform their duties during their absence. There is, first of all, the question of the wisdom of the rule itself; and, secondly, the question of the fairness of applying it to existing teachers. I do not think there is much difference of opinion in Ireland in either Catholic or Protestant schools that the rule in itself—I am not saying whether three months might not be reduced to two months—is a wise and sensible rule. The only question is who ought to pay for the substitute. If the Treasury said they were willing to pay for the substitute, I do not think we should differ very much about this question. I think the rules of many school boards require a teacher on marrying to resign. There is a strong feeling—it is not for me to gauge its force—that it is not desirable to have young married women teachers at all. I do not myself personally take that view. I should be very sorry to exclude married women altogether from the profession, but undoubtedly I think in Ireland everybody agrees that they should absent themselves for a very considerable period, not only in their own interest, but in the interest of the child which is born,

    2179
    and the scholars themselves who are being taught. The only question is—how long should the absence be, and who is to pay the substitute? It is difficult to estimate how much it would cost. I do not think it would cost less than £6,000 or 7,000 a year, and as to the Treasury undertaking the whole responsibility, I cannot honestly say that I contemplate at the present moment the Treasury taking any such burden upon themselves. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) referred to one case where the rule had operated unfairly. When I heard of it I wrote to the Commissioners about it, and said this is surely the reductio ad absurdum, and that anything more harsh could hardly be imagined. The poor woman tried to get a substitute to perform her duties, but being unable to do so, she performed the duties herself without any injury to anybody; but the Commissioners docked her salary because she was present at school performing her duties when she ought not to have been there. The teacher did not get her money. We have that case and others under consideration, and I will bring before the National Commissioners my view of the matter which is that existing teachers who were married when this rule came into operation are entitled to exceptional treatment. Whether the three months can be reduced to two, or some contribution obtained from the Treasury is not a matter as to which the House will expect me to say anything now.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to hold out any hope of a change being made in the system of inspection, or with regard to the promotion of assistant teachers?
    Mr. BIRRELL: With regard to inspection, you are exposed to very great difficulty. Nobody wants examinations. Nobody wants the teachers examined. Teachers examine other people, but they do not submit to examination themselves, and they must be inspected. You cannot say, "We have such confidence in this man who is moulding the characters of the children under his care that we are going to leave him ten or fifteen years without inspection." He must be inspected. It is a very annoying thing to have to be inspected, and you are apt on occasions sometimes to consider that the inspector is incompetent to discharge his duties, and sometimes he may be. Sometimes inspec-
    2180
    tors are very unreasonable in the demands which they make, but there are not many of these. It is not a characteristic of the Irish people to carry out their duties in an offensive and unfriendly manner. The Irish system is a warm-hearted human system, and sometimes I think the relation between examiners and inspectors and the reverend mothers and heads of the schools are rather too friendly from the English point of view, but it may well be that there should be an appeal, and that no single inspector should be able, simply because he dislikes a particular person, to pursue him and injure him in his calling, and I think, therefore, that the requirement that in certain cases a second inspector should be called in is not an unreasonable one, and I will do my best to press it. With regard to the assistant teachers, educationally I agree very much with what has fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. O'Donnell), but I would like time to consider his proposal, because, although he suggests that they might go in for the third grade without any third grade salary, I should say that that is more a suggestion of his own than one that he would like to recommend to the teachers.
    Mr. O'DONNELL: I suggest that they might be allowed to go to first grade without the salary and that on becoming principals they might get first grade salaries without getting second grade salaries.
    Mr. BIRRELL: That involves a Treasury demand, which I am not at present in a position to give any positive assurance about, but I quite recognise the importance of the subject.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word about Rule 86A?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am at present engaged in correspondence with them about that rule and I am not in a position to give the hon. and learned Member the only answer which will give him satisfaction.
    Mr. JOHN GORDON: Could the right hon. Gentleman see his way to do anything in reference to the training college attached to Marl-borough Street College, that is the Talbot House part of it, where the female teachers are being trained, and where there have been outbreaks of diphtheria and other diseases, owing to the insanitary conditions of the place?
    Mr. BIRRELL: When I was in Dublin recently, I visited the place and became

    2181
    alive to the difficulties which exist in connection with it. I do not lose sight of it, but it will involve also a very considerable sum of money about which there is controversy at present.
    Mr. GORDON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do something?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will be very pleased.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: After what has been said I desire to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    It being Ten of the Clock, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of each Class of the Civil Service Estimates, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, and Revenue Departments Estimates.

    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1912–13.

      Class I.
      Resolution reported,
      4. "That a sum, not exceeding £485,141, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1912, col. 1774.]
      Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Services Estimates," put.
      The House divided: Ayes, 311; Noes, 163.

      Division No. 177.]

      AYES.

      [10.1 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Adamson, William

      Cotton, William Francis

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

      Hackett, John

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Alden, Percy

      Crooks, William

      Hancock, J. G.

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Cullinan, John

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Armitage, Robert

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Harwood, George

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      De Forest, Baron

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Delany, William

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Den man, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Hayward, Evan

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Dillon, John

      Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

      Doris, William

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Bentham, G. J.

      Duffy, William J.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

      Boland, John Pius

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

      Higham, John Sharp

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Hinds, John

      Brace, William

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Hodge, John

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Hogge, James Myles

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Falconer, James

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Ffrench, Peter

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Field, William

      Hudson, Walter

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Jardine, Sir J, (Roxburgh)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      John, Edward Thomas

      Cameron, Robert

      Furness, Stephen

      Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Gelder, Sir W. A.

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Gill, A. H.

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Glanville, H. J.

      Jowett, F. W.

      Clough, William

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Joyce, Michael

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Keating, Matthew

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Greig, Col. J. W.

      Kelly, Edward

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Kilbride, Denis

      Nuttall, Harry

      Samuel, J. (Stockton)

      King, J. (Somerset, North)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Scanian, Thomas

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Clicklade)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      O'Dowd, John

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rlnd, Cockerm'th)

      Ogden, Fred

      Sheehy, David

      Leach, Charles

      O'Grady, James

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Shortt, Edward

      Lewis, John Herbert

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      O'Malley, William

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Lundon, Thomas

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Lynch, A. A.

      O'Shee, James John

      Snowden, Philip

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      McGhee, Richard

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Maclean, Donald

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Summers, James Woolley

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Sutherland, John E.

      MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Sutton, John E.

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      McCallum, Sir John M.

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

      M'Curdy, C. A.

      Pirie, Duncan Vernon

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      M'Kean, John

      Pointer, Joseph

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Manfield, Harry

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Wadsworth, John

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Martin, Joseph

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

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Wardle, George J.

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Radford, G. H.

      Webb, H.

      Middlebrook, William

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Molloy, Michael

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Reddy, Michael

      Wiles, Thomas

      Mooney, John J.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Morgan, George Hay

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Morrell, Philip

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Williamson, Sir Archibald

      Morison, Hector

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Muldoon, John

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Munro, R.

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Winfrey, Richard

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Neilson, Francis

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Rowlands, James

      Nolan, Joseph

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Cassel, Felix

      Fatherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Cator, John

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Astor, Waldorf

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

      Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

      Fleming, Valentine

      Balcarres, Lord

      Cecil, Lord P (Herts, Hitchin)

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Gibbs, George Abraham

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Barnston, Harry

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Barrie, H. T.

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Grant, J. A.

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Gretton, John

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Butcher, John George

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Fell, Arthur

      Helmsley, Viscount

      2184

      2185

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Nield, Herbert

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

      Stewart, Gershom

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Hiohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Swift, Rigby

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Paget, Almeric Hugh

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

      Hume-Williams, W. E.

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Valentia, Viscount

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Kerry, Earl of

      Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs, Southport)

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Rolleston, Sir John

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

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Winterton, Earl

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

      Macmaster, Donald

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      McNcill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

      Sandys, G. J.

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Younger, Sir George

      Malcolm, Ian

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Bird and Mr. Chambers.

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      Class II.
      Resolution reported,
      5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,808,239, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in
      respect of the Services included in Class II. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
      Question put,
      "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class II. of the Civil Services Estimates."
      The House divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 166.

      Division No. 178.]

      AYES.

      [10.12 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Duffy, William J.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Adamson, William

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Cameron, Robert

      Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

      Alden, Percy

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Armitage, Robert

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Arnold, Sydney

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Falconer, James

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Clough, William

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Ffrench, Peter

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Field, William

      Barnes, G. N.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouh)

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Furness, Stephen

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Crooks, William

      Gelder, Sir W. A.

      Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

      Crumley, Patrick

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Bentham, G. J.

      Cullinan, John

      Gill, A. H.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Boland, John Pius

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Glanville, H. J.

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Brace, William

      De Forest, Baron

      Greig, Col. J. W.

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Delany, William

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Devlin, Joseph

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Hackett, John

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Dillon, John

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Hancock, J. G.

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Deris, William

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Manfield, Harry

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

      Martin, Joseph

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Harwood, George

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Havelock-Allan, sir Henry

      Middlebrook, William

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Molloy, Michael

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Hayward, Evan

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Rowlands, James

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Mooney, John J.

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

      Morrell, Philip

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Morison, Hector

      Samuel, J. (Stockton)

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

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Muldoon, John

      Scanian, Thomas

      Hinds, John

      Munro, R.

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Hodge, John

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Hogge, James Myles

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Sheehy, David

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Neilson, Francis

      Shortt, Edward

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

      Hudson, Walter

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Nuttall, Harry

      Snowden, Philip

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      John, Edward Thomas

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. sir Albert

      Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Summers, James Woolley

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      O'Dowd, John

      Sutherland, John E.

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Ogden, Fred

      Sutton, John E.

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      O'Grady, James

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Jowett, F. W.

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Joyce, Michael

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

      Keating, Matthew

      O'Malley, William

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)>

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Kelly, Edward

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      O'Shee, James John

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Kilbride, Denis

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Verney, Sir Harry

      King, J. (Somerset, North)

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Wadsworth, John

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Wardle, George J,

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rind, Cockerm'th)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Leach, Charles

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Webb, H.

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Pirie, Duncan Vernon

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Pointer, Joseph

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      Lundon, Thomas

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Whyte, A, F. (Perth)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Wiles, Thomas

      Lynch, A. A.

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Williamson, Sir Archibald

      McGhee, Richard

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Maclean, Donald

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

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Winfrey, Richard

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Radford, G. H.

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

      McCallum, Sir John M.

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      M'Curdy, C. A.

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Reddy, Michael

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Barrie, H. T.

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Butcher, John George

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Astor, Waldorf

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Cassel, Felix

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Cator, John

      Balcarres, Lord

      Bird, Alfred

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Cave, George

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Barnston, Harry

      Bull, Sir William James

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      2188

      2189

      Chambers, James

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

      Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Hume-Williams, W. E.

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Sandys, G. J.

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Kerry, Earl of

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Stewart, Gershom

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Fell, Arthur

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Swift, Rigby

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      MacCaw, Wn. J. MacGeagh

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Macmaster, Donald

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Fleming, Valentine

      Malcolm, Ian

      Touche, George Alexander

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Valentia, Viscount

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Gibbs, George Abraham

      Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Newdegate, F. A.

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs, Southport)

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Nield, Herbert

      Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

      Goldsmith, Frank

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

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

      Grant, J. A.

      Paget, Almeric Hugh

      Winterton, Earl

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Gretton, John

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Wood, John (Staiybridge)

      Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

      Younger, Sir George

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

      Walrond and Captain Clive.

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Class III.
      Resolution reported,
      6. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,512,530, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1913, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July; 1912, cols. 1783–1786.]
      Question put,
      "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class III. of the Civil Services Estimates."
      The House divided: Ayes, 314; Noes, 173.

      Division No. 179.]

      AYES.

      [10.25 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

      Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, s. George)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Bentham, G. J.

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Adamson, William

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Boland, John Pius

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Alden, Percy

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Clough, William

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Armitage, R.

      Brace, William

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Arnold, Sydney

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Cotton, William Francis

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Crooks, William

      Barlow, Sir John Emmot (Somerset)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Crumley, Patrick

      Barnes, G. N.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Cullinan, John

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Cameron, Robert

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Keating, M.

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      De Forest, Baron

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Delany, William

      Kelly, Edward

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Kilbride, Denis

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Dickinson, W. H.

      King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

      Dillon, John

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Moiton)

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Doris, William

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Radford, George Heynes

      Duffy, William J.

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Leach, Charles

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Levy, Sir Maruice

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Reddy, M.

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Lundon, T.

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Rendall, Atheltsan

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Lynch, A. A.

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Falconer, James

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Farrell, James Patick

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      McGhee, Richard

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Maclean, Donald

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Field, William

      MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      McCallum, Sir John M.

      Rowlands, James

      France, G. A.

      M'Curdy, Charles Albert

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Furness, Stephen

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Gelder, Sir W. A.

      M'Laren,Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding)

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Manfield, Harry

      Samuel, J. (Stockton)

      Gill, A. H.

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Scanian, Thomas

      Glanville, H. J.

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Schwann, Rt Hon. Sir C. E.

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Martin, Joseph

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Sheehy, David

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Greig, Colonel James William

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Shortt, Edward

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Middlebrook, William

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Molloy, M.

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Smyth, Thomas F.

      Hackett, J.

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Snowden, Philip

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Mooney, John J.

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Hancock, J. G.

      Morgan, George Hay

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

      Morrell, Philip

      Stanley, Albert (Lancs., N.W.)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Morison, Hector

      Summers, James Woolley

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Muldoon, John

      Sutton, John

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Munro, R.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Harwood, George

      Murray, Hon. A. C.

      Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Neilson, Francis

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Hayward, Evan

      Nolan, Joseph

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Wadsworth, John

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Nuttall, Harry

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Wardle, George J.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Webb, H.

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Dowd, John

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Hinds, John

      Ogden, Fred

      White, J. (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Grady, James

      White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

      Hodge, John

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O'Malley, William

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Williamson, Sir Archibald

      Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Shee, James John

      Wilson, Hon. G. G (Hull, W.)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Hudson, Walter

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., W.)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Palmer, Godfrey

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Winfrey, Richard

      John, Edward Thomas

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Jowett, F. W.

      Pointer, Joseph

      Joyce, Michael

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      2192

      2193

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Paget, Almeric Hugh

      Ashley, W. W.

      Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Astor, Waldort

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Baird, J. L.

      Fleming, Valentine

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Baker, Sir Ft. L. (Dorset, N.)

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Gilmour, Captain J.

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Glazebrook, Capt. P. K.

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs)

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Rawson, Colonel R. H.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Grant, J. A.

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Barnston, H.

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

      Gretton, John

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Beresford, Lord C.

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Bird, A.

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Bull, Sir William James

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Butcher, J. G.

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      Carlile, sir Edward Hildred

      Hohler, G. F.

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Cassel, Felix

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Stewart, Gershom

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Cator, John

      Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Swift, Rigby

      Cautley, H. S.

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Cave, George

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

      Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Chambers, James

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter

      Touche, George Alexander

      Clay, Capt. H. Spender

      Kerry, Earl of

      Valentia, Viscount

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

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

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      MacCaw, Wm, J. MacGeagh

      Winterton, Earl

      Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Macmaster, Donald

      Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Malcolm, Ian

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Faber, George D. (Clapham)

      Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

      Yate, Col. C E.

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

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Younger, Sir George

      Falle, B. G.

      Nield, Herbert

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

      Fell, Arthur

      Norton-Griffiths, John

      Peel and Mr. Ronald McNeill.

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Class IV.
      Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of
      Class IV. of the Civil Services Estimates."
      The House divided: Ayes, 316; Noes, 174.

      Division No. 180.]

      AYES.

      [10.35 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Adamson, William

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Brace, William

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Barnes, G. N.

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Agnew, Sir George

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Alden, Percy

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Brunner, J. F. L.

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Armitage, R.

      Bentham, G. J.

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Arnold, Sydney

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Black, Arthur W.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Boland, John Pius

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Cameron, Robert

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

      Nuttall, Harry

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Hon., S.)

      O'Connor, John Kildare, N.)

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Hinds, John

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Dowd, John

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Hodge, John

      Ogden, Fred

      Clough, William

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Grady, James

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Malley, William

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Cotton, William Francis

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Shee, James John

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Crooks, William

      Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Crumley, Patrick

      John, Edward Thomas

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Cullinan, John

      Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Davies, Timothy (Louth)

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Joyce, Michael

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      De Forest, Baron

      Keating, M.

      Pointer, Joseph

      Delany, William

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Kelly, Edward

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Devlin, Joseph

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Dillon, John

      King, J. (Somerset, North)

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Doris, William

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

      Duffy, William J.

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rlnd, Cock'rmth)

      Radford, G. H.

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Leach, Charles

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Lundon, T.

      Reddy, M.

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Falconer, J.

      Lynch, A. A.

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      McGhee, Richard

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Maclean, Donald

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Field, William

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      France, G. A.

      McCallum, Sir John M.

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Furness, Stephen

      M'Curdy, Charles Albert

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Gelder, Sir W. A.

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Rowlands, James

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Gill, A. H.

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Manfield, Harry

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Glanville, H. J.

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Samuel, J. (Stockton)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Martin, Joseph

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

      Greig, Colonel James William

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Sheehy, David

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Meagher, Michael

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim)

      Shortt, Edward

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Middlebrook, William

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Gulland, John William

      Molloy, M.

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Hackett, J.

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Smyth, Thomas F.

      Hancock, John George

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Snowden, P.

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

      Mooney, J. J.

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Morrell, Philip

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Morison, Hector

      Summers, James Woolley

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Sutherland, J. E.

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

      Muldoon, John

      Sutton, John E.

      Harwood, George

      Munro, R.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

      Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Nannetti, Joseph

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Needham, Chrisopher T.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Hayward, Evan

      Neilson, Francis

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Hazleton. Richard (Galway, N.)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Nolan, Joseph

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

      Wadsworth, John

      2196

      2197

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Wiles, Thomas

      Winfrey, Richard

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Wardle, George J.

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Williamson, Sir Archibald

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Webb, H.

      Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      W. Jones and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Paget, Almeric, Hugh

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Ashley, W. W.

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Astor, Waldorf

      Fleming, Valentine

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Baird, J. L.

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

      Gastrell, Major W. H.

      Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Glazebrook, Capt. P. K.

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgomy B'ghs)

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Rawson, Colonel R. H.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Greene, W. R.

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Barnston, Harry

      Gretton, John

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Barrie, H. T.

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Beresford, Lord C.

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Bigland, Alfred

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Bird, A.

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

      Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hohler, G. F.

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Burn, Col. C. R.

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

      Butcher, J. G.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Stewart, Gershom

      Cassel, Felix

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

      Swift, Rigby

      Cator, John

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Cautley, H. S.

      Jackson, Sir John

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Cave, George

      Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Kerry, Earl of

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Chambers, James

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Touche, George Alexander

      Clay, Captain H. Spender

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Clive, Captin Percy Archer

      Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Coatas, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

      Craik, Sir Henry

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Winterton, Earl

      Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

      Macmaster, Donald

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

      Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Malcolm, Ian

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Faber, George D. (Clapham)

      Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

      Yate, Col. C. E.

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

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Younger, Sir George

      Falle, B. G.

      Nield, Herbert

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Fell, Arthur

      Norton-Griffiths, John

      Haddock and Mr. W. E. Horne.

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VI. of the Civil Services Estimates," put, and agreed to.

      Class V.
      Resolution reported,
      8. "That a sum, not exceeding £426,014, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in
      respect of the Services included in Class V. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
      [For Services included in this Glass, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1912, col. 1794.]
      Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class V.

      2199
      of the Civil Services Estimates," put, and agreed to.

      Class VI.
      Resolution reported,
      9. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,837,464, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1912, col. 1795.]

      Class VII.
      Resolution reported,
      10. "That a sum, not exceeding £171,969, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
      [For Services included in tins Class, see OFFICIAL RETORT, 29th July, 1912, col. 1796.]
      Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VII. of the Civil Services Estimates."
      The House divided: Ayes, 318; Noes, 174.

      REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
      Resolution reported,
      14. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,503,730, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPOET, 29th July, 1912, col. 1806.]
      Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates."
      The House divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 173.

      Division No. 181.]

      AYES.

      [10.45 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Cotton, William Francis

      Gulland, John William

      Adamson, William

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Hackett, John

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Crooks, William

      Hancock, John George

      Alden, Percy

      Crumley, Patrick

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Cullinan, J.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Armitage, Robert

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Harwood, George

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      De Forest, Baron

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Delany, William

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Havelock, Allen Sir Henry

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Barnes, George N.

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Hayward, Evan

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

      Dillon, John

      Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Doris, William

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Duffy, William J.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

      Black, Arthur W.

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Boland, John Pius

      Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

      Hinds, John

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Bowerman, Charles W.

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Hodge, John

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Hogge, James Myles

      Brace, William

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Falconer, James

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Bryce, John Annan

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Howard Hon. Geoffrey

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      French, Peter

      Hudson, Walter

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Field, William

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      John, Edward Thomas

      Buxton. Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Furness, Stephen

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Cameron, Robert

      Gelder, Sir William Alfred

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      George. Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Gill, Alfred Henry

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Joyce, Michael

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Glanville, Harold James

      Keating, William

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Greenwood, Granvile G. (Peterborough)

      Kelly, Edward

      Clough, William

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Greig, Colonel James William

      Kilbride, Denis

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      King, J. (Somerset, North)

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Lardner, James Carige Rushe

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

      Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

      Leach, Charles

      O'Dowd, John

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Ogden, Fred

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Lewis, John Herbert

      O'Grady, James

      Sheehy, David

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Lundon, Thomas

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Shortt, Edward

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      O'Malley, William

      Simon, Sir Arthur Allsebrook

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitherse)

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      O'Shee, James John

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      McGhee, Richard

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Snowden, Philip

      Maclean, Donald

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Summers, James Woolley

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Sutherland, John E.

      McCallum, Sir John M.

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Sutton, John E.

      M'Curdy, Charles Albert

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Tennant, Harold John

      M'Laren,Hon.F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

      Pointer, Joseph

      Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

      Manfield, Harry

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Martin, Joseph

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Verncy, Sir Harry

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Wadsworth, John

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

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

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Meagher, Michael

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Middlebrook, William

      Radford, George Heynes

      Wardle, George J.

      Molloy, Michael

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

      Webb, H.

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Mooney, John J.

      Reddy, Michael

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Morrell, Philip

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Morison, Hector

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Wiles, Thomas

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Muldoon, John

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Munro, Robert

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Williamson, Sir Archibald

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

      Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

      Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs. N.)

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Neilson, Francis

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Winfrey, Richard

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Wood, Rt. Hon. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Rowlands, James

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Norton, Captain Cecil William

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W.

      Nuttall, Sir Harry

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Jones and Mr. W. Benn.

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Butcher, John Geeorge

      Faber, George D. (Clapham)

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

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

      Astor, Waldorf

      Cassel, Felix

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Fell, Arthur

      Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

      Cator, John

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Balcarres, Lord

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Cave, George

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

      Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Fleming, Valentine

      Marlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Barnston, Harry

      Chambers, James

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Barrie, H. T.

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Gibbs, George Abraham

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Clyde, James Avon

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Grant, James Augustus

      Bigland, Alfred

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Bird, Alfred

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Gretton, John

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

      Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourng)

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Bull, Sir William James

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      2202

      2203

      Hamilton. Lord C. J. (Kensington)

      Malcolm, Ian

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Stewart, Gershom

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Nield, Herbert

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

      Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

      Swift, Rigby

      Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

      O'Neill, Hon A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Hope, Jams Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Paget, Almeric Hugh

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

      Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Touche, George Alxander

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin)

      Valentia, Viscount

      Jackson, Sir John

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, Sast)

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

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

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, Ripon)

      Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Winterton, Earl

      Lewisham, Viscont

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

      Younger, Sir George

      Macmaster, Donald

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      E. Wood and Mr. Harry Hope.

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Army Estimates," put, and agreed to.

      Division No. 182.]

      AYES.

      [11.0 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      McGhee, Richard

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Maclean, Donald

      Adamson, William

      Ffrench, Peter

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Field, William

      MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Alden, Percy

      Fitzgibbon, John

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      McCallum, Sir John M.

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      M'Curdy, Charles Albert

      Armitage, Robert

      Furness, Stephen

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Arnold, Sydney

      Gelder, Sir William Alfred

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Gill, Alfred Henry

      Manfield, Harry

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Glanville, Harold James

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Martin, Joseph

      Barnes, George N.

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Mason, David M. (Coventy)

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

      Greig, Colonel James William

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Meagher, Michael

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Middlebrook, William

      Bentham, George J.

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Molloy, Michael

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Gulland, John William

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Black, Arthur W.

      Hackett, John

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Boland, John Pius

      Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Hancock, John George

      Montagu, Hon. E. S.

      Bowerman, Charles W.

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      Mooney, John J.

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Brace, William

      Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Morrell, Philip

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Morison, Hector

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Brunner, John F. L.

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

      Muldoon, John

      Bryce, John Annan

      Harwood, George

      Munro, Robert

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Murray, Capt Hon. Arthur C.

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Hayward, Evan

      Neilson, Francis

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

      Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Nolan, Joseph

      Cameron, Robert

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Nuttall, Harry

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Hinds, John

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Hobhouse, Rt Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Hodge, John

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Clough, William

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Dowd, John

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Ogden, Fred

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Grady, James

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Malley, William

      Cotton, William Francis

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      O'Shee, James John

      Crooks, William

      Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Crumley, Patrick

      John, Edward Thomas

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Cullinan, John

      Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

      Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Joyce, Michael

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Keating, Matthew

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Da Forest, Baron

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Delany, William

      Kelly, Edward

      Pointer, Joseph

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Devlin, Joseph

      Kilbride, Denis

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Dickinson, W. H.

      King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Dillon, John

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Decon.S.Molton)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Doris, William

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Duffy, William J.

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      Pimrose, Hon. Neil James

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Leach, Charles

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Radford, G. H.

      Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Lundon, Thomas

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Reddy, Michael

      Falconer, James

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      2206

      2207

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Wardle, G. J.

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Webb, H.

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Snowden, Philip

      Wedgwood, Josiah c.

      Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Summers, James Woolley

      Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Sutherland, John E.

      Wiles, Thomas

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Sutton, John E.

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Rowlands, James

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Williamson, Sir Archibald

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Tennant, Harold John

      Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

      Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs. N.)

      Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Winfrey, Richard

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Verney, Sir H.

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

      Wadsworth, John

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Sheehy, David

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      W. Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

      Shortt, Edward

      Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Fleming, Valentine

      Paget, Almeric Hugh

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Astor, Waldort

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

      Gibbs, George Abraham

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Balcarres, Lord

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Grant, James Augustus

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Gretton, John

      Rawson, Col. Richard H.

      Barnston, Harry

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Barrie, H. T.

      Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Ronaldshay, Earl of

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Bigland, Alfred

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Bird, Alfred

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

      Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Butcher, John George

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Carlile, Sir Edwrad Hildred

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

      Cassel, Felix

      Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Stewart, Gershom

      Cator, John

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Swift, Rigby

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

      Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Cave, George

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Jackson, Sir John

      Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Jardlne, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

      Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Kerry, Earl of

      Touche, George Alexander

      Clyde, James Avon

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Valentia, Viscount

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

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

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

      Winterton, Earl

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Macmaster, Donald

      Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Duke, Henry Edward

      McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Faber, George D. (Clapham)

      Malcolm, Ian

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

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

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Fell, Arthur

      Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

      Younger, Sir George

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Newdegate, F. A.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Nield, Herbert

      R. Baker and Mr. Chambers.

      Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

      Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Class VIII.
      Resolution reported,
      11. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,789,469, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII. of the Estimates for Civil Services."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1912, cols. 1799–1800.]

      NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
      Resolution reported,
      12. "That a sum, not exceeding £28,441,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services."
      [For Services included in this Glass, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1912, cols. 1801–1082.]

      ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
      Resolution reported,
      13. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,037,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services."
      [For Services included in this Class, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1912, cols. 1805–1806.]

      NAVY AND AEMY EXPENDITURE, 1910–11 [29th July].
      Resolutions reported,
      I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1911, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

      (a) That the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services by a sum of £28,895 10s. 10d.;

      (b) That the aggregate receipts in aid of Navy Services exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated in aid of those Services by a sum of £213,259 12s. 11d.;

      (c) That, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

      Total Surpluses

      …

      £337,724

      12

      11

      Total Deficits

      …

      153,360

      10

      10

      Net Surplus

      …

      £184,364

      2

      1

      And whereas by a Vote of Parliament during the present Session (House of Commons Paper, No. 65, 1912), a further sum of £100 has been granted for the expenditure of the year 1910–11, and the appropriation of additional receipts in aid of such expenditure has been sanctioned to the amount of £28,795 10s. 10d.
      And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
      1. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
      [For Schedule, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1912, cols. 1811–1812.]
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Some of us would like to know what this is about. I have no doubt it is quite in order, but to us here it sounds something of a character which ought to be in the Appropriation Bill. I think we are entitled to a few words of explanation.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): We are dealing with the appropriation of the moneys voted in 1910–11. During the year we have power to apply from time to time to the Treasury for temporary sanction in respect of over-spendings and under - spendings on the votes. The Treasury can give its temporary sanction by virtue of the power which it has, and Parliament gives its approval, under section 4 of the Appropriation Act. Parliament gave us in 1910–11 £40,603,700. We estimated to receive appropriations in aid to the amount of £1,808,824. Therefore we had at disposal a total of £42,412,524. As a matter of fact we spent actually in this year £28,895 10s. 10d. more than the aggregate sums estimated for these services, the total expenditure being £42,441,419 10s. 10d. But we received in appropriations in aid, £213,259 12s. 11d. more than we estimated for. If we take the excess spendings, £28,895 10s. 10d. from excess of appropriations in aid, £213,259 12s. 11d., there is a surplus of £181,364 2s. 1d. We cannot do this without bringing the matter specifically before Parliament, so we come for an excess vote of £100 which we got on 29th February, and this makes the surplus, not £184,364 2s. 1d., but £184,464 2s. 1d
      Question, "That the House do agree with the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
      II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1911, and the statement appended thereto, that the aggregate expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, but that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the total differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

      Total Surpluses

      £329,734

      19

      10

      Total Deficits

      119,126

      8

      8

      Net Surplus

      £210,608

      11

      2

      And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
      2. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
      [For Schedule, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1912, cols. 1813–1814.]
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Mr. HICKS BEACH: May we have some explanation from the War Office?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I do not think I need add anything to what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to the general conditions under which this Motion is brought forward. I imagine that the explanation the hon. Member wishes is in regard to the particular figures. The total surpluses on those Estimates is £329,734 19s. 10d. and the total deficits £119,126 8s. 8d. and the net surplus is £210,680 11s. 2d. It will be seen that the main Votes on which these surpluses and deficits have been accumulated are No. 4, No. 7, No. 9, and No. 10. In the Appropriation Account there is a full explanation of all the facts by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. With regard to the Territorial Force the hon. Member will find that the surplus was mainly owing to fewer men having come up for training. With regard to armaments the surplus has arisen owing to the introduction of the new howitzer and a delay in settling patterns of equipment. The surplus in works and buildings is due almost entirely to the fact of much slower progress than was expected on certain new works and in alterations and repairs being carried out on old buildings. The main deficits were in Vote 7 and Vote 8. In Vote 7, too, how an estimate was made of the amount of clothing soldiers were likely to purchase under the new system. These Estimates were prepared in 1909 and they cover a period lasting until March 1911. Over that period of more than twelve months it was extremely difficult to calculate all the unforeseen events which were likely to happen. I hope that next year we shall make a much closer approximation than we have in the past. The figure is a comparatively small variation on the total amount of the Estimates if you add the surpluses and the deficits so as to get the total amount of variation. It will be found it only amounts to about 1.7 of the total Vote.
      Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It appears from the explanation to which we have just listened that the Government have been pursuing the same course of action during the period included in these accounts as they have done in previous years, namely, spending on one purpose money voted by Parliament for an entirely different purpose. We have listened to most deplorable admissions on the part of the Government. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that the Government have been starving the Territorials, that they have got less men, that buildings have been delayed, and a variety of other shortcomings which altogether make a most disgraceful total. There is hardly a single item which does not amount practically to an admission of incompetence. One of the most melancholy things is that they have attained the result that everyone in the House expected for such conduct, namely, that they have less men, and they actually take credit for having spent less money because they have fewer men to spend it upon. Anyone with any sense of responsibility whatever would be heartily ashamed of it"
      Question put and agreed to.

      WAYS AND MEANS [29th July].
      Resolution reported,
      "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, the sum of £92,847,343 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
      Motion made and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
      Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Masterman.

      CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
      Bill "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirteen, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament." Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a Second time to-morrow (Thursday), and to be printed. [Bill 302.]
      PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION.]
      Considered in Committee.

      Mr. MACLEAN IN THE CHAIR.
      Resolved, That it is expedient to authoise the Remission of a Debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans.—[Mr. Masterman.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Resolution to the House."
      Mr. C. BATHURST: Do we understand Mr. Maclean, that we have reached the Committee stage of this Bill, because if that is so I desire to move an Amendment.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not the Committee stage of the Bill. The Question is "That I report this Resolution to the House."
      Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: On a point of Order. This Bill was down for Second Reading, and I would like to ask at what stage it is now before the House?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Bill is not before the House at all.
      Mr. MASTERMAN: On a point, of Order. The Bill had its Second Reading yesterday; it will go into the Committee stage to-morrow. I understand that this is merely an empowering Resolution.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: On my point of Order—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know what is the hon. Baronet's point of Order. The Minister has explained to the Committee how the matter stands.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: I think I am entitled to discuss on the question of this
      Resolution the advisability of whether or not this Bill should be passed.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only opportunity for speech is on the Bill.
      Sir A. MARKHAM: I should like to be quite clear on that point: am I entitled to raise the principle contained in the Bill?
      Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask on a point of Order whether or not the only Question before the Committee is that you report this Resolution to the House.
      Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I very respectfully ask—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no opportunity now for discussion. The whole Question before the Committee is whether I report the Resolution or not.
      Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: On a point of Order. I wish simply very respectfully to ask what the Resolution is that is before the House. We have not been able to catch it.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Resolution which I read to the Committee was sufficiently clear. I am sorry it was not heard.
      Question put.
      Viscount HELMSLEY(seated and covered): I desire to ask you Mr. Maclean, if this question be negatived by the Committee—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would not report the Resolution to the House.
      Viscount HELMSLEY: Would the Resolution be passed or not passed. What would happen to it?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That would be for the Government—over whom I have no control—to say.
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 60.

      Division No. 183.]

      AYES.

      [11.30 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

      Adamson, William

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Alden, Percy

      Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Bentham, G. J.

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Armitage, Robert

      Boland, John Pius

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Arnold, Sydney

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Shee, James John

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Clough, William

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Jowett, Frederick William

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Crumley, Patrick

      Joyce, Michael

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Cullinan, John

      Keating, Matthew

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Kelly, Edward

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Radford, George Heynes

      De Forest, Baron

      Kilbride, Denis

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Delany, William

      King, Joseph

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Reddy, Michael

      Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Dillon, John

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Duffy, William

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Lundon, Thomas

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Lynch, Arthur Alfred

      Roch, Walter F.

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

      Rowlands, James

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Samuel, J. (Stockton)

      Falconer, James

      MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Farrell, James Patrick

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Scanian, Thomas

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      McGhee, Richard

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Ffrench, Peter

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.

      Field, William

      Manfield, Harry

      Sheehy, David

      Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Shortt, Edward

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Martin, Joseph

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Furness, Stephen

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Smyth, Thomas F.

      Gelder, Sir W. A.

      Meagher, Michael

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Gill, Alfred Henry

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Sutton, John E.

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Middlebrook, William

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Molloy, Michael

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Greig, Colonel James William

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Tennant, Harold John

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Mooney, John J.

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Verney, Sir H.

      Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

      Morison, Hector

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Hackett, John

      Muldoon, John

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Munro, Robert

      Webb, H.

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Hazleton, Richard

      Nolan, Joseph

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Nuttall, Harry

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

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

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

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Dowd, John

      Younger, Sir George

      Hinds, John

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Hodge, John

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

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Malley, William

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      NOES.

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Cassel, Felix

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Baird, J. L.

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

      Chambers, James

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Banner, John S. Harmood-

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Barnston, H.

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Macmaster, Donald

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      McNeillp, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Malcolm, Ian

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

      Bigland, Alfred

      Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Bird, Alfred

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Bull, Sir William James

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Pollock, E. M.

      2216

      2217

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Whaler, Granville C. H.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

      Sandys, G. J.

      Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Arthur Markham and Mr. Watson

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Rutherford.

      Stewart, Gershom

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Touche, George Alexander

      Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Thursday).

      LONDON INSTITUTION (TRANSFER) [MONEY.]
      Considered in Committee.
      Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of a sum for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the transfer to the Commissioners of Works of certain property of the London Institution for the purposes of a School of Oriental Studies, and for the dissolution of the Institution, and for purposes in connection therewith.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
      Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

      GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
      Resolved, That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travels' Foundation for the year 1912–13 be approved.—[Mr. Lambert.]
      And, it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at Eighteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.