Sitting of 28 July 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 26th day of July, That, in the case of the following Bill, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely—
KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. [H.L.]
  Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from, one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Beading thereof, the Standing Orders
  210
  which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely—

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  CLACTON-ON-SEA GAS AND WATER BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  MALDON WATER BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  SOUTHAMPTON GAS BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  ISLE OF WIGHT RAILWAY (BRADING HARBOUR AND RAILWAY) BILL. [H.L.]
  Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  LEICESTER FREEMEN BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  PAISLEY CORPORATION (LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  VIGORS' DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  SAINT MARYLEBONE CHURCHES BILL. [H.L.]
  On the Order for the Third Reading of the Marylebone Churches Bill,
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: The Amendments, Sir, to this Bill, which are alleged to have been of a verbal character, might have been made when the Bill was before the Unopposed Bills Committee. They were not proposed, apparently in order to avoid the Report stage of this Bill; and I wish to put as a point of order in reference to that question, whether it is competent to, first, move Amendments and call them verbal Amendments of this kind, when there is an opportunity of moving them at the proper time, and when the exact effect of them can be considered; and, secondly, when an Amendment is down on the Paper which proposes to leave out the word "black" and insert the word "white," as is done in one of these Amendments, whether it comes within the meaning of the Rule, and should be called a verbal Amendment, although it substantially alters the meaning of the clause.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have examined the Amendments with the Bill, and am satisfied that they are mere verbal Amendments, such as may be properly moved at this stage.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'now read the third time,' and add the words 'recommitted to the former Committee 'instead thereof."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I move that the Bill be recommitted, and I do so owing to the circumstances under which the Bill was rushed through Committee. I characterise it as the unseemly haste with which this Bill has been smuggled through this House as an unopposed Bill, when there was known to be the very strongest opposition to it by Members of this House, some of whom were ratepayers of the parish concerned. That was one of the many little schemes which have been adopted in order to avoid a discussion on the terms of this Bill. And now, Sir, I wish to draw your attention to this: there was an arrangement with those who are responsible for the promotion of the Bill, that discussion should
  212
  take place on a particular day. In the meantime the Bill is taken without notice given to those who oppose it, without a word being said about it, and whilst there is a notice on the Parliamentary Paper indicating that a very important discussion is to take place on the following Monday. That is a proceeding of which the promoters cannot be very proud. I submit that this course ought not to have been taken, except under very exceptional circumstances. That course has, I know, been taken once or twice before, but the circumstances were of so extraordinary a character, and it was such a case of urgency, that the Government took upon themselves the responsibility of adopting that course, but there was nothing in this case to call for anything like that. There were three weeks of the Session left, and that was ample time. The Instruction would have been decided on the Monday, and the Bill ought to have been taken through Committee on the Tuesday. Even if this Instruction had been carried it would not have interfered materially with the progress of the Bill. All that would have been necessary, if the Instruction had been carried, would have been to insert a few clauses omitting this Instruction. But the real object of the underhand procedure adopted was in order to stop discussion upon this job which is proceeding in the parish of Marylebone. The promoters may object to such a description of their proceedings, but anyone who goes through this Bill as we have gone through it must come to the conclusion that it is a very gross job indeed. Property belonging to the parish is handed over to another body—the control of it is handed over to another body—property worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. Rights of patronage are handed over. In a sense they are rights of patronage, because these appointments are not to be made without the consent of the vestry; those rights are handed over without compensation. The sanction of the vestry has to be obtained before certain clerical property is handed over; but the vestry, when called upon to pay £83,000 for the privilege of handing over property worth two or three hundred thousand pounds, quietly assents. This is an extraordinary proceeding, and I can understand why the

  213
  promoters of the Bill are exceedingly anxious that as little discussion as possible should take place upon the details of the Bill. Why are they so anxious to get it through in the dark and underhand manner adopted all along by the promoters? Because they are afraid of public opinion. There is no man who can defend this Bill upon the principle of a fair and open transaction between one body and another. It is not a bargain, and if it is called a bargain, it is a very bad one; and if the vestry were simply acting as trustees for the ratepayers, they might have made very much better terms than those. They might have said, "We will hand you over this property on condition that you will give us a complete discharge of all liability. But their action in this matter is worthy of a Mullingar board of guardians. It is a perfect job, and they know that well, and that is the reason they wish to hide it from the light of public discussion. There was a very important question raised in this House, which ought to be thrashed out in a Committee of this House. That is the question of the 2d. rate. The learned Attorney General made an ingenious speech, which I fully admit made out a case that appeared at the time to be irresistible. His case was this: there are two rates in this parish—one is a 4d. rate imposed by an Act of George III., and the other is a 2d. rate imposed by a later Act, by an Act of George IV. With regard to the 4d. rate that is invalid, and has been declared to be so by the Court of Appeal. With regard to the 2d. rate, I understood the learned Attorney General to say that the Court of Appeal had declared that rate to be valid. As a matter of fact the 2d. rate was never before any court at all. We have had no adjudication upon the question of limitation or otherwise of the 2d. rate. The 4d. rate is bad, but the 2d. rate has never been challenged. The learned Attorney General admitted that there was a distinction between the 2d. rate and the 4d. rate. An honourable Member of this House, seeing that the 2d. rate has never yet been challenged, is perfectly prepared to go into every court in the land and test its validity, and he will do so at his own
  214
  expense. That is a perfectly fair offer. It is not inflicting a costly litigation on the parish of Marylebone, but he will test the validity of this 2d. rate entirely and absolutely at his own expense. That is a very generous and handsome offer, and if it is true that this Bill is purely a bargain, and a fair bargain, made between the vestry, representing the ratepayers, and the ecclesiastical authorities, in order to get rid of a burden upon the parish, and they are paying £80,000 for the purpose of so doing, surely it is well worth their while to accept such an offer, which may get rid of the whole of that burden by the one possible test, and that is the test of litigation, and that at the expense of somebody else. What is the position of the 2d. rate? I understand from the Attorney General that it was on an entirely different base to the 4d. rate. I go to the Act of Parliament which is alluded to in the Marylebone Churches Bill, which is now before the House, and I say that this ought to be thrashed out in Committee of this House, and that is why I am moving the re-committal of this Bill. This 2d. rate is supposed to be valid. Now, see what the Act says which imposes it—
  "And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said vestrymen, if they shall think the same necessary, at the like times and in the same manner, and under and subject to the like powers and provisos, as to the persons and property to be assessed, and with all and every the like powers and remedies for recovering and enforcing the payment of the rates so to be assessed, and subject to the same right of appeal, and to every other matter or thing relating to the rates directed to be made under the said first recited Act, to make one or more additional rate or rates, assessment or assessments, upon all and every the person and persons who do or shall inhabit, use, or occupy any land, house, shop, warehouse, coach-house, stable, cellar, vault, building, tenement, hereditament, within the said parish of St. Marylebone, as long as such rate shall be necessary, and so that no such additional rate or rates, assessment or assessments, shall exceed the sum of twopence in the pound in any one year of the full, or according to such proportion of the yearly rent or value as the same property shall from time to time be assessed to the rate for the relief of the poor within the said parish, to the intent that there shall be only one rate now exceeding sixpence in the pound on the value or yearly rent of such property as aforesaid, for carrying the purposes of this Act and the said first recited Act into effect, and for defraying all and every

  215
  the expenses incident to both such Acts respectively; and the said additional rate or rates shall be collected in like manner and under the like penalties, to all intents and purposes, as the rate or rates assessed under or by virtue of the said first recited Act are directed and enacted to be collected."
  This rate is imposed in the same way, upon the same persons, in the same manner and the same power as the 4d. rate. If the 4d. rate is invalid, is it such an impossible proposition that the 2d. rate which is to be imposed by the same power and in the same manner may be equally void? It seems to me such an obvious thing, reading the section of the Act of Parliament, seeing that both are on the same basis, as far as that Act is concerned, that it is only fair to accord the parishioners of Marylebone an opportunity of thoroughly testing this question before anything is done. However, I can quite understand that the ecclesiastical gentlemen who will get hold of this £80,000 are very anxious that this question should not be looked into. They do not want it looked into. They want their money. They have had their £4,000 from the parish, and now they want another £80,000. It is only another illustration of the policy pursued by the Unionist Party in this Parliament. That Party has given two millions to one set of its friends, three-quarters of a million to another, £700,000 to another this year, and now they say to the parish of Marylebone, We have just given £700,000 to the landlords of Ireland, and we will give £80,000 to the clergy of Marylebone. That is the policy which was laid down by the Secretary of State for India. He said, "What is the task which the Government have to perform?" and the answer really contains the whole principle involved in the Marylebone Churches Bill. It was, "It is to safeguard and protect the interests of our friends, not only while we are in office, but even in the contingency of our being out, that we have asked throughout." That is the principle on which they have acted. They want to safeguard the interests of their friends. A 2d. rate is liable to be abolished. It may be decided in the Court of Appeal at the expense of somebody else. It is this possibility that the Court of Appeal may show this rate to be what it decided the 4d. rate to be, namely, a bad and invalid rate, that the
  216
  Government say, "We want to protect our friends. We must make the thing perfectly secure and safe, and the next Parliament may not be inclined to jobs of this kind, like the present Parliament is. We have elections at Heading and elsewhere, which indicate the opinion of the country as to the Marylebone Churches Bill and the Agricultural Rating Bill; therefore we want to give you £80,000." This, I say, is peculiarly a question which ought to be looked into by a Committee of the House of Commons, and that is my reason for moving its re-committal. As I understand that my honourable Friend may not be allowed to move his instruction afterwards, I will move his.
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member will be in just as good a position in a general way as in a particular way.
  MR. HARWOOD: I beg to second the Motion of my honourable Friend, but I do so not quite on the grounds brought before the House by him. In that I disagree with him. I would ask the House to look at this question apart from any considerations which have been introduced or apart from any considerations of sectarianism or of party. As to the reasons that have compelled us to bring this matter forward I can only say that I believe that the promoters of this Bill have nothing whatever to do with the unfortunate circumstances to which attention has been drawn, but I earnestly hope that in future it will not frequently happen that arrangements which are made are broken by such another unfortunate accident. With regard to the Bill itself generally I support this Motion, not because I am opposed to the principle of the Bill as a general principle, because my position is that I am in favour of the principle of this Bill, for I take it that the particular principle of this Bill is to make the work in the Church of this district of Marylebone more effectual and more satisfactory by removing from it the friction of public irritation and all cause of ill-feeling; therefore, in that sense I am prepared to support the principle of some arrangement. I think it is wise that there should be some arrangement, not only in the interests of the Church, but also in the interests

  217
  of good-fellowship and good-feeling in the neighbourhood. We do not, therefore, object to their making a bargain; but the question is as to what sort of a bargain is made. This is not a fair bargain. It is not a bargain such as the Church ought to have initiated or such as this House should sanction. It is said that the vestry has consented, and therefore we have no right to raise this matter; but I think that everyone who knows anything about London knows how difficult it is to rouse public opinion and public enthusiasm. Therefore, because the vestry has sanctioned anything of the kind, it is by no means certain that public feeling is in favour of the bargain. In my opinion it is rather a sign that they do not know anything about it. I venture, therefore, to consider the bargain quite apart from all considerations of sect and quite apart from all considerations of political party. I want to consider whether these terms between the public and the Church are such as the House ought to sanction, and I may at once venture to say that they are not. I wish the House to look at the matter as a matter of bargain between the people of Marylebone, and not to look at it as a matter of church, or of chapel, or of sect. It is purely and simply a matter to consider whether this is for the best interests of the public of Marylebone. The Church of England as a body cannot hold property. Every parish church is a corporation sole in the ordinary term, and therefore we must consider the bargain as it will affect the particular place. I take as an example one of the most important churches with which I have myself been personally associated and of whose circumstances I know a great deal, and when we are asked to consider what is the bargain made between the public of Marylebone and the church of Christ Church let us see what the church of Christ Church is. There are, of course, some slight differences in the arrangements, but the principle is the same. In the first place, the church, the building, and the land were found by public money, certainly the building was found by public money entirely, and the fabric is made over to the rector in the usual way. Therefore they get that
  218
  church given them. Then, in the second place, Christ Church gets a sum not exceeding £130 per annum towards the maintenance of the fabric—that is, £130 per annum in perpetuity for the maintenance of the fabric. And in addition to that they get a sum not exceeding £220 per annum towards the maintenance of divine worship. And then there is a further sum of £400 a year towards the rector's salary. Thus we have three items in addition to the absolute gift of the fabric. First, £130 a year for the fabric; second, £220 a year for the maintenance of divine worship; third, £400 a year towards the rector's salary. Now, how about pew rents? In regard to pew rents a considerable sum is being raised from that source in the different churches, but I am dealing specially with Christ Church. What has been the proceeding hitherto with regard to these pew rents? As you will see on page 2 of the Bill, they are vested in the vestry up to the present moment, and until the Bill passes the pew rents continue to be vested in the vestry; the building is vested in the vestry, and it belongs to the vestry; and the ordinary method has been that the pew rents collected have gone to the credit of this particular account. What are you doing now? You are capitalising the debit side of the account. You are giving up your money and your securities, and a fund which was a set-off against your expenditure. That is the condition of affairs at the present moment. What are the people getting in return? It is fair that there should be a bargain. It is fair to remember that the people now are bound to provide for the carrying on of these churches. That is the obligation which they have to face, and the value of which this House must consider. But, in considering the value of that obligation, remember that that obligation is not a perpetual one. The obligation depends upon an Act of Parliament, and what Parliament has done Parliament can undo; and I beg the House to consider further that this obligation is one which depends upon public feeling, and that public feeling is running, as it were, contrary to imposts of this kind. Does anyone now contend that this House

  219
  would sanction a Bill to make a church rate compulsory? Has not the history of the past 25 years shown that such a proceeding would be utterly futile? Such Acts of Parliament are bound to be swept away when once our attention is called to them. That is why this Bill is brought in. This Bill is brought in because the Marylebone churches have no perpetual security, and because it is well known that when a change of public feeling takes place, which invariably follows public attention being called to them, such things are certain to be swept away. But what are you doing? As I halve said before, this obligation is not a perpetual one; it may cease this year or next. But this Bill values that obligation in perpetuity. Practically speaking, it sells this £4,000 a year for a lump sum of £80,000; therefore, it guarantees £4,000 a year for ever. Therefore, I say that it is not fair to the public of Marylebone, and because the public of Marylebone has not awakened to the fact of its unfairness, that is no reason why this House should not look after the public interests of the parishioners of Marylebone. We are here to guard the interests of those who cannot help themselves, and therefore we will not sanction a bargain—or, I should say, we ought not to sanction a bargain—which is not fair to the public. I do not ask for the money to be altered, or for the financial arrangements to be altered, but I do ask that something shall be done, at any rate, which shall show the public that we have some regard to their rights in this matter. One thing the House can do. Considering that the fabric is given, the land given, income given, funds for the repair of the fabric given, funds for maintaining Divine worship given, surely the least thing the House can do is to allow the public to go into their own churches for nothing. This was the precedent which was followed last year. Two new churches were built in the place of an old one—an old church built under an Act like this—and this condition was inserted in the Bill—
  "All sittings in the new church of St. Peter and Christ Church respectively shall be free and unappropriated."
  220
  In this case you make over the pew rents to the authorities. It is quite true that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may alter this arrangement, but I have not so very much confidence in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as some people have; and not only so, but if a bargain is being struck the fundamental conditions of that bargain ought to appear on the face of the bargain. You ought not to take the whole advantage on one side and leave everything on the other side to the determination of some other authority which is not acquainted with the facts. I differ from most of my colleagues in this matter. I have, for many years, steadily upheld the value of a national Church, because I believe that such a Church is good for the nation and good for the Church. It is good for politics, for it keeps them high. It ought to be good for the Church, because it ought to keep it practical. We have had some discussions about ritual and doctrine in reference to the old Catholic idea. I ask the House, is this a matter of return to the old Catholic idea? Anyone who has read knows that the highest and best ideal of any church is that ideal which makes it the protector of the people, and not the plunderer of the people. It is not easy to stand un for these things and to uphold these views which are contrary to the feelings of your colleagues, but that task will be made much more difficult if a Church does not recognise that a national Church ought to be national—national in sympathy, national in ideal, and national in method. The ideal, surely, of a national Church in a democratic country is that is should stand upon a democratic basis—that it should be open to ail. I have pleaded for the Church, because it is not congregational, but because it is parochial, and the power of that position is this, that because it is parochial it is open to all, without money and without price. Now, here is an opportunity of carrying out that principle into action. I have seen honourable Members and heard honourable Members on the other side of the House pleading for this principle of open churches—pleading for this democratic principle of no pews and no pew rents. Can you ever have an opportunity so good for carrying their views into practice as this affords you? Will

  221
  you ever have so good a chance of carrying out this principle as this one affords you, where you have the fact that the churches were given for nothing, and that an income was guaranteed? I have a letter coining from a well-known parishioner, which puts the case so very simply that I will read it, if the House will allow me. I may say that this is from one of the most well-known parishioners in Marylebone, and one of the most well-known Members of this House.
  [At this point a person in the Strangers' Gallery loudly clapped his hands.]
  MR. SPEAKER: That disorderly person is to be removed from the Gallery immediately.
  MR. HARWOOD (after reading the letter referred to): Another point I want to make is this, that this district of Marylebone, as honourable Members know, is largely changing its character. A new railway and a new station have been brought there, and the population has become almost exclusively a poor population. What is it we are asking for? We say that if the Church is a national Church it must be open to the poorest and to the masses of the people, and I beg Members of this House to take this opportunity of illustrating in London that, in a large area of London, the Church—the National Church of England—can safely rest upon the broad and sound principles of trust in the people.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I really must apologise to the House for obtruding myself upon its attention again upon this subject, but it is impossible for me to leave entirely unanswered the matters which have, been brought forward by the two honourable Gentlemen who have moved and seconded that this Bill be re-committed. I fancy that the House must have got tired of the Marylebone Churches Bill. Every Parliamentary device that is known to delay and obstruct and defeat the Bill has been exhausted probably by now. The honourable Member for Carnarvon says that this Bill has been rushed through
  222
  the House—that unseemly haste has been used with regard to it. But it does not so very often happen to the lot of a private Bill that there should be no less than three Debates upon it, and three Divisions upon it, before it comes to the third stage, and I suppose we shall have a Division upon the re-committal, and probably another upon the Third Reading. As I said on a former occasion, this is an ordinary Bill, treated in an ordinary way. As regards the complaint of the honourable Member for Carnarvon, there has been nothing whatever, as far as I know, outside the ordinary rules and regulations of the House, applied to this Bill which does not apply to every Bill. This is an unopposed Bill; there was neither opposition nor objection from any parties at all, excepting the petition which was not allowed to be put upon the forms of the House. The honourable Member for Carnarvon has disclaimed any desire to defeat the Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, I did not.
  MR. BOULNOIS: The course taken by the Welsh Nonconformists and their friends on this subject has indicated that their desire is to get rid of the Bill in any manner they can. The Member for Carnarvon says that the promoters of the Bill have no desire that the Bill should be discussed. The promoters are the Vestry of Marylebone, and that vestry represents the inhabitants of Marylebone. As I have said before, upon two or three occasions, I represent to the House, as an earnest of the bonâ fides of the Vestry of Marylebone, that there has been no opposition against this Bill from the ratepayers of Marylebone. It is true that a public meeting was called to denounce the Bill, at which there were to be no less than three prominent Members of Parliament, but they could collect only 50 persons, and that, to my mind, hardly seems to indicate a strong feeling against this Bill. The honourable Member for Carnarvon used a lovely word with reference to the Bill—he says it is a job. The job is this: it is to get rid of a rate which falls upon the ratepayers in perpetuity, and to substitute for it a charge which will exist for 30 years, and no more. The honourable Member for Bolton says that the

  223
  rate is not in perpetuity. That is preaching again the doctrine of repudiation and confiscation, and it is quite clear that where Parliament has imposed upon a local authority an obligation which takes the shape of a money payment, Parliament is not likely to disturb an arrangement of that kind unless an equivalent is given for it in some shape. Now, with regard to the continued suggestion that the rate is illegal, those honourable Members of the House who heard the Attorney General, I think, were perfectly satisfied with the lucid explanation which he gave—so lucid, indeed, that no Member on the other side of the House ventured to get up and answer the statement so made. Then the honourable Member for Bolton says that it is not a fair bargain, and he poses as the guardian of the ratepayers of Marylebone, who cannot look after themselves. I have lived in Marylebone all my life, and I can say that the inhabitants of Marylebone are quite as sensible as most people are, and can look after themselves equally well without the interference of gentlemen who have nothing to do with the Bill. I assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that this is a first-rate bargain. I do not say that it is so good a bargain for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but for the ratepayers it is a first-rate bargain. There is the commutation of a rate for the lump sum of £80,000, the payment for which is spread over 30 years, and, as a matter of fact, the ratepayers, who at the end of 30 years; will be quite free, will have been compelled to pay no more than they could have been compelled to pay for the next 300 years. I am not going into details with the honourable Member, but he alluded to Christ Church. That was a most unfortunate choice of his, because the House must be reminded that Christ Church is situated in one of the poorest districts in London, and that the pew rents which are receivable from the people are so small that they are not sufficient to maintain the services. The Nonconformists object to a church rate, and very naturally and very properly. The Vestry of Marylebone have a church rate which the Nonconformists have to pay, and they are making an honest attempt to relieve the Nonconformists of the burden of that church rate. The position of honourable
  224
  Gentlemen opposite is not logical. They say they do not like the imposition of a church rate, and yet they will not allow a Bill to pass which will relieve the inhabitants of that church rate, and it looks to me as if they prefer to nurse and keep their grievances against the Church alive. I hope that the House will not indulge them in that luxury, because it would be a great expense to the inhabitants of Marylebone. I sincerely hope that the House will this afternoon, refuse to recommit this Bill, but will read it a third time, and pass it into law as speedily as possible.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I do not rise for the purpose of repeating again the arguments which have been urged of a general character against this Bill; but I do think, Sir, that the parishioners and ratepayers of this very large parish have some right to complain of the way in which the Standing Orders relating to private Bills have been, applied and utilised for the purpose of getting this private Bill through Parliament this Session. I will ask the House to recollect what the position was last Thursday. There were three Motions down "By Order," and two other Notices of Motion, and Instructions for Committee had been also placed down on the Paper, but they were not "By Order." In accordance with the usual practice when there is a Motion down against a Bill, you, Sir, said that the Bill must go over till next day, and then my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone said "Monday," and subsequently Monday was agreed on. After that, I saw both him and the Parliamentary agent, and by arrangement the Motions were deferred till the following Thursday, that is, to this day. But, in the meantime, without any notice given to us, the Unopposed Bills Committee deal with the matter. I had foreseen that, Sir, and earlier in the week I saw the Parliamentary agent. Possibly, what the Unopposed Bill Committee did was in accordance with the Standing Orders, but, as I say, I saw the Parliamentary agent, and, according to my recollection of the conversation, and I am very clear about it, the general effect was that, so far as the notices of Motion that you, Sir, ordered remained on the Paper, the Bill would not be taken

  225
  by the Unopposed Bill Committee. Now, I acquit my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone of any sharp practice whatever. I know him to be quite incapable of such a proceeding. But I do not know how the matter stands as far as the Parliamentary agents are concerned. In an important matter of this kind we should have an explanation as to how the matter came to be proceeded with without any communication, and without reference to the arrangement which I understood had been made between those who opposed the Bill and the agent for the Bill. I only say that by way of answering the charge of obstruction made by my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone. I absolutely deny the charge of obstruction. I thought we had made a fair arrangement by which we could raise every Motion by way of instruction to the Committee, and that the matter should go on in the ordinary course. I have one or two other remarks to offer in order that the House may not come to a decision upon this matter without knowing the absolute state of things in this parish. One of the most important vestrymen of the parish, Mr. J. Lewis, has handed me this communication—
  "The inhabitants of Marylebone have never had the question before them, and are mostly ignorant of what is now being done. It was in the hands of a sub-committee, and ultimately rushed through the vestry in face of a strong minority. Mr. Boulnois' statement that the report was adopted nem. con. is misleading, for it applied only to the principle of the severance of the vestry and the churches—6th May, 1897—and not to the terms, which were resolutely opposed, as the minutes show—14th October, 1897, 11th November, 1897. 18th November, 1897, 15th June, 1898. Sir E. Galsworthy, a staunch Conservative, and the most influential member of the vestry, is prepared to give evidence in support of the above statement."
  That is the state of things as recollected by men of a representative character. One word further in regard to the statement of the character of the bargain made by the Attorney General and my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone. My honourable Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has accurately stated the legal and actual position. The 4d. rate—the rate imposed under the Act of 1811, is illegal—that
  226
  has been decided by the Court of Appeal. The 2d. rate imposed by the Act of George the Fourth has never been judicially tested. The Attorney General has given an opinion, and, coming from him, I need not say it is one which I, at any rate, would attach the utmost importance to. The Attorney General says that the rate condemned has never been levied.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): Not since 1889.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I accept the challenge, and I ask how comes it that as late as June, 1898, the vestry paid £20 towards the cost of repairing the bells and other repairs to the parish church. The parish church is the church dealt with by the Act of 1811, and if the Attorney General's proposition is true, no part of the rate ought to be applied to the repair of anything connected with the parish church. That is only one thing we have discovered. We have not had time to investigate the whole of the matter, but still that is one important item, and I have very little doubt that if time were afforded us by this House to go into the matter that we should find there have been great irregularities in the collection of these rates, and I am prepared to accept the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General that he is speaking from information which he has received, but which I submit is not in accordance with the documents I have in my hand connected with the vestry. There is one other point, and one only: I do not think that when the Attorney General and my honourable Friend explained this bargain to the House that they made the position quite clear. It was said that the 2d. rate comes to so much. That amount was capitalised at 30 years' purchase, and it works out at £80,000, which is the sum now in this Bill; but the House was not informed that, on the other side, there is a credit income. The pew rents ought to be credited to the parish, and, even adopting the principle of this Bill, that this is a perpetual liability and not a terminal liability any year, any man will see that you must, in arriving at this amount, deduct the value of these pew rents for the next 30 years. I am only

  227
  dealing with the income and liability. But is nothing to be allowed in assuming the value of this liability? Is nothing to be allowed for the fee simple of these sites? There is nothing to prevent our bringing in a Bill for taking these sites, and using them for other purposes. I do not wish to shook the susceptibilities of other Members, but I must say these are extremely valuable sites; the population has increased, and I put it to any business man who will approach this matter with an unbiased mind whether something ought not to be allowed for the capital value of the land and the value of the buildings. I think I have made clear to the House the nature of this bargain. I assert that it is a bad bargain, and there is a strong minority in the vestry which agrees with me that it is a bad bargain, and I complain very much of the way in which the promoters of this Bill have used the forms of this House for their own purposes.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): I do not propose to enter into the merits of this question, but as the honourable Member for Swansea has addressed the question tome as to how it was that the Unopposed Bill Committee took this Bill last Friday, I will tell him shortly how it happened. It came about in this way. The time for presenting petitions had lapsed; no petitions against the Bill were presented; due notice was given, in accordance with the forms of the House, that the Bill would be taken—I think it is two days' notice that is required—before the Unopposed Bill Committee, and when the time came the Bill was taken in the ordinary way. I was not informed that any arrangement had been entered into, and I do not believe that any arrangement had been entered into, that the Bill was to be hung over until after the discussion of the Instruction on the Paper of the honourable Member for Carnarvon. If any such arrangement had been entered into that the Bill was to be hung up, and was not to be taken, until the Instruction had been disposed of, I should not, under the circumstances, have taken the Bill. I was not informed that any such arrangement had been entered into, and I do not believe that any such arrangement
  228
  was entered into. Therefore, in the ordinary course, I took the Bill on Friday last, because I saw no reason why the promoters should not go with the Bill in the usual and ordinary way.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I did not allege that there was any specific arrangement, but that the language used in the Lobby was such as to lead me to suppose that such an arrangement was made. I am speaking about a conversation I had with the Parliamentary agent.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: The House has naturally looked to the right honourable Gentleman for some explanation of this most extraordinary proceeding, and I think the House will allow that the explanation is as extraordinary as the proceeding. The right honourable Gentleman pleads ignorance. But it was upon, the Journals of the House that notice had been given of these Instructions, and that they were set down by order of the House; and yet he would have us believe that it was his duty to ignore that fact, and to proceed with the Bill as though no such notice had been given. I will leave the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman with the House. I am struck with the absence of any reasonable and rational defence of the provisions of this Measure. It seems to me that it is sought to carry it by a conspiracy of silence, and yet there are several parties to this Bill. First of all there is the vestry. The vestry has been represented by the honourable Member for East Marylebone, and he has very little more to say in defence of the Bill than that it contains a first-rate bargain. I decline to take his opinion upon that point. He has made no attempt to show that the bargain is of so good a character. He has not replied to the specific objections which have been urged against it. Then the Crown is a party to this transaction. The Crown is the patron of the livings. If I am not misinformed, the First Lord of the Treasury is responsible for the large sum of money which is to be handed over under the provisions of this Bill, and I am sorry he is not here to defend his share of the transaction,

  229
  Then there is the Bishop of London, and I do not remember that he offered a word of explanation or of defence when the Measure was before the House of Lords. Next there are the incumbents of the churches. I am rather curious to know what Canon Barker and the Rev. Russell Wakefield, and the other reverend gentlemen, whose incomes will be receivable under this Bill, think of the method by which it is proposed they shall be maintained during a long series of years. Then there are the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who are represented in this House by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield. I await with much interest the reason why the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are proceeding in this case on principles so different from those which they have adopted in dealing with analogous cases. There was a vicar's rate in Halifax which was the occasion of great agitation, and the agitation drove the friends of the Church into making an arrangement. But in that case, in the year 1876, the Government, through Mr. Cross, who was then Home Secretary, offered to abolish the rate—to give up the sum of £970 a year—for the comparatively moderate sum of £11,000, or about 12 years' purchase; and the rate was abolished on those terms. The next case is more interesting still. Coventry has a vicar's rate: that also has been a source of great irritation and friction, and there again the Churchmen are desirous of getting rid of the rate. What is the arrangement there? Are the Ecclesiastical Commissioners going to exact a large sum from the inhabitants of Coventry in order to get rid of this obligation? No, on the contrary. Of the £12,000 which is agreed to be paid as commutation for the rate, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are going to contribute £7,000, leaving the rest to be raised by voluntary subscriptions from Churchmen and Nonconformists, who admit the equity of the arrangement, and are anxious that it should be carried out. Why is Marylebone to be treated in a different manner? While objecting to this Bill, I am anxious to get rid of these vexatious exactions, which are not only injurious to the Church of England, but are also destructive to social happiness. My objection is to the mode
  230
  in which, it is sought to bring this quarrel to an end. It is based on an utterly unsound principle—the exact opposite to that contained in the Church Rate Abolition Act, 1868. The rates were then abolished, without the payment of any equivalent whatever, and the only exceptions are the cases where money was borrowed on the security of the rates, and there they were kept in existence until the debts were paid. The other exception was that in which rates were paid as an equivalent for tithe. But this Bill does not belong to either of those categories, and I think it is most questionable whether, when the legality of these rates comes to be tested, it will be found that there is any legal basis for the Bill whatever—I mean for the Bill as it is now before the House. Why should the inhabitants of Marylebone, or rather, the congregations which worship in these seven churches, be treated differently from all the other inhabitants of Marylebone? Why should these congregations be treated differently from all the other inhabitants of the kingdom from one end to the other? Why should this exaction be continued in this particular part of the kingdom, and in one part of London only? That is the case which has to be made good by the Members who support this Bill; or, at least, they might show that it would be inequitable to be rid of this rate on other terms than those which are set out in the Bill. I will not detain the House, but I must advance some other consideration. The honourable Member for East Marylebone has shown some impatience at the treatment which has been accorded to this Measure in this House. I do not think that the inhabitants of Marylebone will forget this Measure when it has found its place on the Statute Book. For years the ratepayers of Marylebone will have a continual reminder of the injustice which has been done to them, and throughout the kingdom the passing of this Bill will be regarded as illustrative of the injustice, the grasping character, and the unscrupulousness of the upholders of the Established Church. This is a piece of ecclesiastical brigandage, for it exacts heavy ransom for relief from a burden which should never have been imposed, and from which the people should have been relieved two generations ago. We are entitled, not merely to resist this Bill, but to endeavour to

  231
  put an end to the system out of which Measures of this kind spring.
  MR. LEUTY: Of all the speeches made against the arrangement embodied in this Bill, not the least forcible has proceeded from, the honourable Member opposite, the Member for East Marylebone. He has furnished the strongest argument against this Bill. He has, with great frankness, said that the Nonconformists have a right to complain if they are made to pay a church rate. I thank him for that admission, and I hope there are more on his side who are prepared to make that admission. Unfortunately, however, it is felt it is not always admitted with the frankness with which it was just admitted by the honourable Member. Now, he proceeded at once to take us to task for wasting the time of the House, and for obstruction, because we objected that this rate was neither more nor less than a church rate. It is a rate levied under the name of a district rate, and providing a capital sum of money from which an, income will be derived. But it is in all essentials a church rate—a rate for the assistance of the Church, and if there is any difference between a church rate raised for the maintenance of the Church and a district rate raised for the maintenance of the Church, I shall be very glad if some honourable Member on the other side will kindly get up and show me
  wherein that difference consists. The honourable Member having admitted that the Dissenters are right to object to the church rate, I should like to hear from him how he reconciles this imposing, merely under the name of district rate, of a rate which will absolutely have the effect of being a church rate. There is one difference which, does appear on the surface of the argument. Whereas this rate is somewhat doubtful in its legal validity, and whereas there is a great feeling—a very strong feeling—against the unrighteousness of imposing a church rate directly, this arrangement, by foisting this charge on the district rate, thus getting rid merely of the name, and yet at the same time getting not only the annual money, but getting the capital sum of money itself, will possibly raise a great cloud of dust in the midst of which these gentlemen may possibly disappear with, their booty. On the principle that it is unjust to levy rates on Dissenters, I say that it is equally unjust for the House to allow itself to sanction a Measure like this, which levies a rate on Dissenters, which is in reality a church, rate, although it is called a district rate.
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 81.—(Division List No. 264.)

  AYES.

  Aird, John

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Allhusen, A. H. E.

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Arnold, Alfred

  Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Ascroft, Robert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Bagot, Capt. J. F.

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Baird, John George A.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Balfour,Rt.Hon.A. J. (Manc'r)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Balfour,Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Goschen,RtHn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Gretton, John

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Beach,Rt. Hn. SirM.H. (Brist'l)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dalbiac, Colonel P. H.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bethell, Commander

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Bhownaggree Sir M. M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol)

  Bill, Charles

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doxford William Theodore

  Hornby William Henry

  Howard, Joseph

  Monk, Charles James

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Morrison, Walter

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kenyon, James

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Tollemache, Henry James

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Lafone, Alfred

  O'Kelly, James

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Usborne, Thomas

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Purvis, Robert

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Loder Gerald W. Erskine

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

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

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Lowles, John

  Roche, Hon. James (E. Kerry)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  McArthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

  McKillop, James

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone,W.)

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Knowles.

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)

  Shaw-Stewart,M.H.(Renfrew)

  Milner, Sir F. George

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Milton, Viscount

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  NOES.

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Asher, Alexander

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Balfour,Rt,Hon.J.B.(Clackm.)

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Birrell, Augustine

  Joicey, Sir James

  Souttar, Robinson

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Brigg, John

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Caldwell, James

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Cawley, Frederick

  McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Clark, Dr. G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  McEwan, William

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wayman, Thomas

  Colville, John

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Crombie, John William

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Williams. John C. (Notts)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, W.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W.R.)

  Davitt, Michael

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

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Woodall, William

  Dillon, John

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Doogan, P. C.

  Price, Robert John

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Harwood.

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Randell, David

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the Bill be read a third time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 81.—(Division List No. 265.)

  AYES.

  Aird, John

  Ascroft, Robert

  Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

  Allhusen, A. H. E.

  Ashmead-Bartlett. Sir E.

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Bagot, Capt. J. F.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Arnold, Alfred

  Baird, John George A.

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Gretton, John

  Orr-Ewing, Charles L.

  Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Beach, W. W. B (Hants)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Purvis, Robert

  Bethell, Commander

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Bill, Charles

  Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hornby, William Henry

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Brassey, Albert

  Howard Joseph

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Howell, William Tudor

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Butcher, John George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Kenyon, James

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Charrington Spencer

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Spencer, Ernest

  Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Cornwallis, P. Stanley W.

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Lowles, John

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Usborne, Thomas

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Doxford, William Theodore

  McArthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Drage, Geoffrey

  McKillop, James

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Mellor, Rt.Hon. J. W. (Yorks)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Milner, Sir F. George

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milton, Viscount

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Monk, Charles James

  Williams, Joseph P. (Birm.)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Morrison, Walter

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Goschen,RtHn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Knowles.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Kelly, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O'Neill. Hon. Robert T.

  NOES.

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

  Davitt, Michael

  Lloyd-George, David

  Asher, Alexander

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

  Dillon, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Doogan, P. C.

  McEwan, William

  Birrell, Augustine

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Blake, Edward

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Brigg, John

  Goddard Daniel Ford

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harwood, George

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

  Caldwell, James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Price, Robert John

  Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Randell, David

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Colville, John

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Crombie, John William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  236

  237

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Woodall, William

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir. Carvell Williams and Mr. Brynmor Jones.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Wayman, Thomas

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Bill read a third time.

  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  EXETER, TEIGN VALLEY, AND CHAG- FORD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Not amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  KINGSTOWN AND KINGSBRIDGE JUNC- TION RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Not amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION TRAM- WAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
  Bead the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVI- SIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. LOUGH: On the preceding stage of this Hill I endeavoured to call attention to what I think was a very irregular matter. I wag very much astonished by the statement made that I was misinformed as to the facts of this case. My point was that this Bill, which had passed through all its stages in the other House, was referred to the Unopposed Bills Committee without any Amendment. Well, the next day it appears it was reported with an Amendment. I was told that I was misinformed as to the facts. Now, I have obtained a statement from the Parliamentary agent, who is practically the promoter of the Bill, and it is to this effect: the statement is that this Unopposed Committee received the Bill without Amendment at the meeting of that Committee. The representative of the Education Department attended and stated that there was no Amendment to the Bill, and a representative of the promoters, or who were practically the promoters, of the Bill also attended, and, as there was no Amendment, the leaves of the whole Bill were turned over in, the ordinary way, and it was understood that this stage of the Unopposed Committee was at an end. These are the facts upon which I proceeded upon the last occasion. I think I may mention that without fear of contradiction. The point is that subsequently the Bill was amended. Now, Sir, I want to call the attention of the House to this fact. After the Bill had passed through the Unopposed Bills Committee it was amended secretly, and, above all, without any notice being given to those who were practically the promoters of the Bill. Now, if it were necessary to carry any Amendment, I understand that for the convenience of the Department the

  239
  Chairman of Ways and Means practically was in possession of the Bill until it was reported to this House. My point is, if it were necessary to carry any Amendment, notice should be given to the London School Board. I asked the question of the right honourable Gentleman as to why he did not do that, and he stated that he had not the time, after his attention was called to it, to give notice to the London School Board. Well, I do not desire to question anything that the right honourable Gentleman said, because I think it can only refer to his personal honour, because the Education Department were for three, four, and six months previous to this in communication with the London School Board, because all these Provisional Orders demand that proof should be given that they have been duly advertised, and this Provisional Order was advertised in five London papers; and on the 30th of April this House and the Education Department recognised that the forms which had been gone through with regard to this particular site were satisfactory. Even supposing the right honourable Gentleman's attention had been called to the inclusion of this site, as I believe it was, there were these other transactions to which I have referred. I say that the Vice-President of the Council should have postponed the consideration of the matter. There was plenty of time to give the London School Board notice of the fact that this site had been struck out. I think it reflects a great deal of discredit upon the conduct of this business by the Education Department. This is no trifling matter. The striking out of this site has been justified on the grounds that it was in the interests of Voluntary schools. There is a temporary building already on the spot in which 366 children are housed. It appears this building is in two parts, so that there are really two schools instead of one erected at great expense, and this all arises from the fact that this site was treated in an underhand manner, and the Amendment was carried without any discussion. When we mentioned it before, it was said that we should have an opportunity of discussing the matter, but judgment was given against us on that point. It is a very different thing to discuss a matter of this kind on its merits before
  240
  any decision was arrived at, which is what the London School Board desired to do. Now, this House naturally likes to support the action taken in Committee, and, therefore, I was at every disadvantage in asking that this site should be reinstated in the Bill. I think we have every reason to protest against the way this Bill has been carried through. I find myself in a very difficult position in moving that this Bill be not read a third time, nor can I restore the site to the Bill. However, as I think the matter is of great importance, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of procedure, whether it is in accordance with the practice of this House to amend a private Bill which has passed its Second Reading without notice to those primarily interested in its promotion, after the Bill has passed through the Unopposed Committee, or as we think it passed through the Unopposed Committee, and before it had been endorsed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and without Amendment, and before the Report stage in this House. I should be much obliged if you would give your ruling on this point, Mr. Speaker.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is quite obvious that after a Bill has been read a second time no Amendment can be made in it except by the authorised Committee, but that Committee is not bound to give notice of any Amendment to anybody. I have communicated with the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Committees as to what has taken place, and he informs me that this Amendment was made by the Committee.
  MR. LOUGH: But should not notice have been given to the promoters?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Committee is not bound to give any notice whatever.
  SIR J. GORST: I do not say that the reason why notice was not given to the London School Board was because I had not time, after the matter came to my knowledge, to give notice. I said that I had no time after the decision of the Committee of Council on the Bill had been arrived at, and that was a fact; and I acted with the greatest possible promptitude in the matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This matter has been before the Department for months, and it must have been known that it was intended to take this site compulsorily, and they must have come to the conclusion that this site was necessary, and they were perfectly prepared to confer the powers on the London School Board. Now, what is it that has occurred afterwards? Why, through somebody's influence the Department have struck out the site. Now, I think we ought to have some defence from the Education Department of this conduct. First of all, notice is given in the ordinary course. Ample time is provided for, in order that the Education Department should investigate the whole of the sites, which is necessary to confer the adequate powers of compulsory purchase upon the School Board. Now, they came, to this conclusion, that this was a case for compulsory powers to be given. The Vice-President of the Council presumably concurs; the Bill goes through all its stages in the other House, and in this House up to the Committee stage, through the First, Second, and Third Readings and the Committee stage, and nothing is done by the Department. Now what happened afterwards? Why there is not the remotest doubt as to what happened. We know that the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich placed an Amendment, on the Paper. He called the attention of the Vice-President of the Council to this Amendment, and, as he was a little bit nervous as to the task placed upon him, and wanted a little tonic, he said he was not ready for it. Well, he was attacked in the House of Commons on one occasion, and he collapsed. Now, is this to be a precedent? That is the question. Will the promoters have an opportunity of laying their case before the Committee or before the Education Department? No notice was given of this Amendment, and, what is still worse, the solicitor of the School Board being present at the Committee, the whole Committee stage practically passed through unopposed, the Chairman of Committees signs the document—and I do not think he challenges that statement—he signs the Bill as an umamended Bill after the whole of the proceedings have terminated. He signs the Bill as unamended, and then the Vice-President
  242
  of the Council goes to him with a sort of backstairs business when there is no one present. The School Board, who are the promoters of the Bill, know nothing about it. Well, he goes there after a private conversation with the honourable Member for Greenwich, and then he asks us to strike out site No. 10. Well, if that is the way in which private Bills are to be voted, I want to know what is to be the end of it. It will be unnecessary to pass openly and straightforwardly anything in the future. All you will have to do will be to get round the Vice-President or the Secretary of State or the Archbishop, and they will alter the Measure. You will say to the Minister, "Do not oppose it in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, take care not to oppose it openly, allow it to go through every stage, and after that come to me and I will strike it out. I will overrule the deliberate decision of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and do it myself." That is practically what it amounts to.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think we have had a very insufficient explanation of this matter from the Vice-President of the Council. As the honourable and learned Member for Carnarvon has said, this is not a case which applies merely to one Department, but it affects the whole of the Departments of the Government, and they are bound to give a satisfactory defence of this matter. Now, what is the case? Here is a Bill containing a matter of interest, which might involve any other matter in which Parliament is concerned, in which the Department has approved of the proposal, and passed through a Select Committee of the House of Lords without any objection. Consequently the head of the Department—and we even had the Duke of Devonshire concerned—supported it in the House of Lords. That Measure came down openly as far as the proceedings are known to us. The Government have supported this matter and approved of it clearly up to the last stage, and then secretly, without any public communication to this House, without any notice to the body which is interested in the matter—namely, the London School Board—a body which, in my opinion and

  243
  in the opinion of the people of London, deserves to be respected, whether it is respected by gentlemen opposite or not—behind their backs, believing that they were secure in the support of the Government, as we are told, by a private arrangement with the noble Lord, the Member for Greenwich, who has congratulated the Vice-President of the Council upon having done his work in the past so admirably, this matter is so disposed of, and the site is struck out. Now, I venture to say, that that is a breach of the relations of the Executive Government and a Department to the House of Commons, and it is one that ought to be taken notice of; and not only that, but it is one that ought to be denounced, and it is one which by Division we will protest against. There can be no confidence placed in the conduct of public affairs as between Departments and the House of Commons if proceedings of this kind are to be tolerated in the future.
  SIR C. DILKE: There is one view of this subject which has not been put before the House, and that is the bearing of what has occurred in this case upon the whole Provisional Order system. We are continually asked to give our sanction to Provisional Orders in such cases, instead of proceeding by private Bills, and I have always tried to put before the House that this power of the Department to suddenly strike out portions of a Bill is a serious defect in the way of Provisional Order procedure. That power has, however, never been, exercised before without proper notice. I have mentioned this matter to the House before, and protested against the practice of exercising this power even when it has been exercised with notice; but this is a much stronger case, and strikes more directly against the system, because we have had no notice whatever given in this case.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Under the circumstances, if it be permitted to me to do so, I will move—
  "That the Bill be now recommitted."
  MR. PRICE: I beg leave to second that Motion.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I appeal to the Government in this matter. Here is a thing which—and I cannot use any other word until some further explanation is forthcoming—is a concealment of the action of the Executive Government. It may be that there are reasons to be given; it may be that these transactions can be explained and are capable of explanation. But if it is a fact that this thing has been done unknown to the House of Commons, unknown to the School Board, who are interested in the matter, surely the Government and the House would wish that any error of that kind should be corrected, and that the mistake should be repaired and rectified, and that the House should now have the opportunity by recommitting the Bill of having that competence in the matter and that power of dealing with it which they ought to have had from the first.
  SIR J. GORST: I made a full statement the other day on this matter before the House, and it is only owing to my reluctance not to take up the time of the House that I have not repeated my statement to-day. The matter is a very simple one, and this, is only a sort of a storm in a teacup. The site in question—site No. 10—was struck out of the London School Board Bill the Session before last, and that was done after a very long and careful inquiry by the Education Department. The School Board for London, and those who opposed the site, were then informed that a temporary school should be built in the neighbourhood, and the question whether the site was to be taken was to depend upon the success of the temporary school. The school was accordingly erected, and it is now opened; after this, unknown to the heads of the Government, site 10 was again reinserted in this Bill. Of course, the Departments technically were aware of the insertion of this site, but, practically, the Lord President of the Council and some of the other higher officials, only had their attention called to that, fact at the very last moment. But the moment it was discovered the Department decided that, in good faith to those who had opposed the proposal, and towards the arrangement which has been made as to the, erection of the temporary school, the site should be struck out of the Bill. As to the

  245
  executive officer, he had to strike out the site, and he would have given notice to the School Board if there had been time. But there was no grievance created by that notice not being given; and what has been done is what the Department have always claimed a right to do, and it is constantly done.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Yes, with notice.
  SIR J. GORST: Well, this Bill was a public Measure in charge of the Education Department, and we were the promoters of the Bill. The right honourable Baronet has said that this is an abuse of the Provisional Order system.
  SIR C. DILKE: I did not say that. What I stated was that I disliked the practice very much. My point is that it damages the Provisional Order system as against private Bills. This is a public Bill, I understand, in charge of the Education Department, and they are the promoters of it; consequently, I say that there was a breach of faith in this matter.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Does the right honourable Gentleman say that this is a Bill brought forward by the Education Department?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Then why did they put in site 10?
  SIR J. GORST: That site was put in inadvertently with a large number of other sites, because there was no opposition to it. Nobody gave, any notice of opposition, and it went in along with the others. Now, what is it that has been proposed to be done in this case? The right honourable Gentleman proposed a Motion for the recommittal of this Bill. Well, that is, perfectly useless, because the House has already determined that on the Motion of the honourable Member for Islington, and it has resolved that site No. 10 shall not be inserted. I contend,
  246
  therefore, that it will not be in order put this site in the Bill. If it is re-committed, the only way to reinstate this site is to go to the, other House, and, if you can persuade the other House to do it, that is the best way to proceed. As the honourable Member for Islington's proposal was not carried, I apprehend that no re-committal of the Bill would be in order now.
  MR. LOUGH: There is a perfect answer to the apparently only strong point of the right honourable Gentleman's remarks. It happens that two years ago the Education Department demanded that a temporary school should be erected on that spot. The school board absolutely and loyally did this. They erected a temporary school—in fact, they erected two schools there, and both are now crowded with 366 children, so that there has been something like 10 months' experience of a temporary school on the spot to which this Bill refers That is what makes the strength of the present position. The London School Board has done everything it was asked to do; it has done what the Education Department demanded; and it has found that it was necessary to build a school there, and these 400 or more children are put to the greatest inconvenience for school accommodation and the greatest possible discomfort. Not only this, but the London School Board is saddled with all this unnecessary expense. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the right honourable Gentleman will give us another word, and we shall be able to settle this matter. Nothing could be more pacific than my suggestion. I would ask my honourable Friend not to press this matter to a Division, if the right honourable Gentleman will give us a little more assurance as to what will take place in the other House. They examine every point in the other House, and if the bishops and the Voluntary schools want any protection, surely they would get it there. I think I have made the point perfectly clear that the London school Board did everything that it ought to do, and that there is the most flagrant and apparent case against the action of

  247
  the Education Department, and I do hope that if nothing more is said, they will accept the Motion that has been made.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Vice-President of the Council has evaded the gravest allegation made by the honourable Member for Islington, and that is that this Bill passed through the Committee stage without any Amendment, and that the Chairman afterwards signed the document as an unamended Bill in the presence of the parties who were concerned. I submit to the House that that is a very great departure from the procedure of this House, and I draw the attention of the House to the fact that although the Vice-President of the Council made a lengthy statement to-day and the other day, he has not traversed that charge at all, and, what is more, the Chairman of Committees, who is responsible for this, is not present now, although he knows perfectly well that this matter is going to come on. He knows the whole of the facts, in opposition to the honourable Member for Islington, and he is not here to challenge them. He knows that this thing was done in the absence of the parties interested, after he had signed the document; therefore I say that is a very grave departure from the Rules of this House, and I emphasise the fact that the Vice-President of the Council has not answered that charge at all. I can quite understand why he objects to be questioned upon this point. It is very awkward to be questioned about things of this sort. He said that the heads of the Department knew nothing about No. 10 site, but this throws some light not only upon the Education Department, but upon every other Department of the Government as to the way their business is being conducted. I ask the Vice-President of the Council, when these proposals were submitted to the Education Department, was there not a Report made upon those proposals of the London School Board? This is usually done by every Government Department. It is all very well to say that this Bill is promoted, not by the London School Board, but by the Education Department; technically that is true, but nobody knows better than the Vice-President of the Council himself that substantially it is not true, and the answer is not a perfectly genuine one.
  248
  These Bills, it is true, are promoted nominally by the Department who have got them in charge, but really they are promoted by the local authorities. The Vice-President of the Council says there was no time to interfere. Well, there was a vast amount of expense incurred by the London School Board in solicitors' charges and other matters, and the Vice-President allows them to go through all this form of expense, and there is no opposition, and at the very last moment he throws away all these costs by means of this departure from the usual course, and he is setting up a perfectly dangerous precedent, and one which I venture to say every Member of this. House must agree with me in describing as grossly unconstitutional.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: The Vice-President has protested against this discussion, and has pointed out that even if this Bill were recommitted, site No. 10 would not and could not be put in. But the Vice-President does not seem to understand why we are dividing the House. We are dividing in order to relieve our Parliamentary consciences. We find that there has been a great deal of departmental secret "hanky-panky" business in regard to this Bill, and we consider that the control of Parliament, even upon the Education Department's own Bill, will be destroyed, and the respect entertained for Parliament outside in regard to legislation will be injured by this course of procedure. For these reasons, I hope my honourable Friend will divide the House.
  SIR H. FOWLER: In this case there is a much wider application, for it affects the general procedure and practice of the House, and not only the injustice done in this case. No doubt the Vice-President is technically right in this, that the House having decided that this site 10 should not be inserted in the Bill, it would not be competent for the Committee to reverse the decision of the House. I want, however, to point out to the House the great danger of this mode of procedure if the House is going to condone this new departure. Now, I am a strong advocate for proceeding by Provisional Order, and I differ from my right honourable Friend below the Gangway, the Member for the Forest of

  249
  Dean, on this point. I think it is one of the truest solutions of the enormous expense of private Bill legislation. The thing is that this has, passed absolutely unnoticed by the Government of the day, and the head of the Department is simply dealing with his own individual action. Now, this is a question affecting the procedure of the House, and neither the Leader of the House nor any Member of the Cabinet has thought it worth while to take any part in the discussion. Now, I want to point out where this practice will lead us to. Let us take the case of an Order made by another Department. Technically the Bills forming these Provisional Orders are simply performing an executive act on behalf of some body who have a right to make such a petition for such Provisional Orders—I mean such bodies as the London School Board, town councils, or other local bodies. Now, if that form of application for these Orders is opposed, the Government Department takes no further interest in the procedure, and it bears no part of the expense of the position, for that falls, on the local authority who have to defend it. Take the ordinary course of the Local Government Board in reference to the poor laws. A local authority applies for power to borrow certain money in order to perform certain works, and an inspector goes down, and he inquires fully into the case. He makes his report to the Local Government Board, and, therefore, they make a certain Order, in, which they insert certain conditions as to costs, as to time, and as to the sinking fund, and any other conditions which a Committee of this House might be disposed to insert in a private Bill. Now that Order is published. The local authorities are perfectly satisfied with that Order, it is brought in and nobody presents a petition against the formation of it, and, therefore, the local authority have a right to assume that it is going to pass through the House without opposition, and they practically take no further trouble, in the matter. The Local Government Board, as a matter of form, pass the Bill as an unopposed Bill, and if it goes before the Chairman of Committees, as an unopposed Bill would go, I have always thought that no substantial alteration could be made in a Bill of that description. But that is not necessary for my
  250
  argument. Supposing some local person, or some other local authority interested in this Provisional Order, proposed some change, and went and convinced the Local Government, Board that that Order should be radically altered, that some main provision should be altered, or some new power should be put in, or that you must strike out some restriction imposed, or impose some restriction which should not be imposed, and all this without any communication with the local authority interested, even after the Bill has been formally passed by the Unopposed Committee. Now, does this House intend any official of this House—I will not exempt even Mr. Speaker from this remark—any official—to have the power to alter private Bill legislation without notice to anybody, and without notice to any of the parties concerned. I think the privileges of this House are vitally involved, and this is a matter in which the House has a right to have an opinion from the Executive Government of the day. In order to elicit that opinion I beg leave to move—
  "That the House do now adjourn."
  MR. L. H. COURTNEY: The Motion just made is of a most unfortunate character because it will stop any further discussion of the question. Now, although I have nothing to say about the Motion for adjournment, I have something to say on the matter before the House, and upon the speech of the right honourable Gentleman opposite, and I hope he will withdraw his Motion.
  SIR H. FOWLER: The right honourable Gentleman has had much more experience than I have of Parliamentary procedure, and he must know that this Motion is the only constitutional mode of asking the Executive Government to take part in the Debate. Of course, if any Minister would rise and give an explanation, I will at once withdraw; if not, I shall press my Motion to a Division.
  Question put—
  "That the House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 148.—(Division List No. 266.)

  AYES.

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Price, Robert John

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Randell, David

  Asher, Alexander

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hedderwick, T. C. H.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Birrell, Augustine

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Blake, Edward

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Brigg, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Steadman, William Charles

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lough, Thomas

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Cawley, Frederick

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Colville, John

  MacDonnell,Dr.M.A. (Qn's C.)

  Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)

  Crombie, John William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

  McEwan, William

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Davitt, Michael

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wayman, Thomas

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Dillon, John

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.

  Woodall, William

  Evans, Sir F. H. (S'th'mpt'n)

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

  Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  O'Kelly, James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Perks, Robert William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. William McArthur and Mr. Causton.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  NOES.

  Aird, John

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gretton, John

  Arnold, Alfred

  Charrington, Spencer

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

  Colomb, Sir John C. R.

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Hornby, William Henry

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

  Curzon,RtHn.G.N. (Lanc.SW)

  Houston, R. P.

  Balfour, Rt.Hon. G.W. (Leeds)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Beach,Rt.Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kenyon, James

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Knowles, Lees

  Bethell, Commander

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs.)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Brassey, Albert

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Carlile, William Walter

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Lowe, Francis William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lowles, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St.G'rg's)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maclure, Sir John William

  252

  253

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  McKillop, James

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Milton, Viscount

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Monk, Charles James

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Whiteley, Geo. (Stockport)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton-under-L.)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Shaw-Stewart,M.H. (Renfrew)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Murray, Et. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

  Murray, Colonel W. (Bath)

  Smith, James P. (Lanark)

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  O'Brien, P. (Kilkenny)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Strauss, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Purvis, Robert

  Talbot,RtHn.J.G.(Oxf'dUny.)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Question again proposed—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. COURTNEY: I desire to reply to the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. Certainly, if such a contingency as that suggested by the right honourable Gentleman had happened, it would be a grave matter for the consideration of the House, but what has actually occurred does not warrant any such fears. A Provisional Order Bill originates, as my right honourable Friend says, and is drawn up by the Department after a local inquiry amongst those who require a Provisional Order to carry on the work necessary to secure their recommendations, and those interested in the concern have the power of coming in and interfering and altering the Provisional Order, after which it is then sent to Parliament embodying important and perfectly independent schemes, and, as a common matter of business, these Bills then go before the Unopposed Committee. If, on the suggestion of the Department, or for any other reason such as that which my right honourable Friend has suggested—namely, an alteration of the contents, or of any item of the Provisional Order is made, so as to alter the relations of those concerned in the Provisional Order as originally drawn up, without notice to the persons interested, it would be a very flagrant miscarriage of justice in the practice and procedure of this House. But that has occurred in this case. In a Provisional Order embodying several schemes the Department which has control of the Order from the beginning
  254
  always has the right to withdraw the Order in toto, or, if one part is detached from the other portion of the scheme, go as not to affect by its withdrawal the interests of the different parties concerned in its co-operation, that one independent complete part could be withdrawn by the Department. What my right honourable Friend has said is not the fact, because the Government can withdraw altogether a substantial part, of the Order if they like, since the Department are masters of the situation in the first place, and it can by the same right withdraw anything which it chooses. Supposing that they were entitled to come and say, "We will withdraw this," that is what happened here. So far as this particular site is concerned they withdrew it, and I frankly admit that it is within the competence of the Department to do so; but as between this House and its officer nothing has been done which can be made a subject of criticism as far as the Chairman of Ways and Means is concerned, for he has done nothing but that which the Department allows him to do. I admit that, to withdraw a clause that has reached that stags, it was proper to have given notice to the persons interested, and who were promoting the Order, and that was the intention of the Department; then those persons could have gone and argued out the matter before the Committee. This, however, is simply a Departmental question, and it is not a Parliamentary question. It is a question which affects the action of the Department itself in relation to the persons who promoted this Provisional Order. My right honourable Friend frankly confesses that a mistake was made. It was a mistake to allow this

  255
  site to go into the clause at all; the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire says that it is a reflection on the heads of the Department to allow such things to occur. Did my right honourable Friend know when he himself was the Home Secretary every item in the list of subjects provided in the Measures prepared by the Home Department?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is not what I said. I said that this was not substantially a Bill of the Education Department, but substantially the Bill of the London School Board. That is the argument I used. I said that the School Board put in the site, and not the Department.
  MR. COURTNEY: That shows, I think, that, in the Bills initiated in the Department which was controlled by the right honourable Gentleman, he knows very little of the way in which they were prepared. But it is perfectly irrelevant to the argument. The question raised is that of the argument of my right honourable Friend. As the Vice-President has said, the introduction of this site was a mistake on the part of the Education Department, and they would not, if the heads of the Education Department had had their attention called to it, have allowed it to be introduced; but as the Executive Department is responsible to this House, they would be responsible for refusing to proceed with this Bill. The real matter of regret is that the Education Department, having resolved to withdraw this particular site, did not give notice to the School Board for London of its intention to do so. My right honourable Friend said he had not got time. Well, very little time is wanted, and the Bill could have been put off for a week when it came before the Chairman of Ways and Means. I regret that notice was not given; that is the one defect in the whole Bill. I do not see why my right honourable Friend the Member for Wolverhampton has used such an argument, for he has pointed to a much graver matter which would be of more importance to this House if such a thing had occurred. But he has confused the effect of the scheme; he has confused that with the variation and the details of the scheme. It would be absolutely
  256
  impossible to conduct business by the Chairman if he exercised such powers, and it would be the grossest possible offence against the duties of Parliament. What has happened has been an error not noticed, which, after all, has not affected the final results of the matter, because the scheme would have been withdrawn if notice had been given. It is not a fact that they would have had power to appear before the Chairman. I think it is recognised from all parts of the House that this is not likely to be repeated, or else Parliamentary action would become rather an absurdity.
  MR. ROBSON: The right honourable Gentleman has tried to make out that this is a trivial and inadvertent error which the Department has subsequently corrected without injury to anyone concerned, and without in any way affecting the privileges or practice of this House. But it seems to me, Sir, and to a great many more experienced Members of this House, that something more serious is involved. What has been done here is this: the Chairman of Ways and Means has apparently, after signing this Bill—and that is a circumstance to which the right honourable Gentleman who spoke last did not allude—has made an alteration without giving notice to the Department concerned. Those who have addressed the House have spoken sufficiently upon that point, but we are entitled to know at whose instance, and upon whose initiative, the Chairman of Ways and Means acted. Knowing what has been said, I think we are entitled to have fuller light upon that part of the subject. The honourable Member for Bodmin has said that this is not a case of alteration in the Provisional Order that affects rights of property. I confess I cannot follow him in that. It is an alteration affecting the taking of land. How do we know that this has not been done at the initiative of a private property owner, or at the instance of someone interested in the Voluntary schools? We do know that some time ago the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had a Motion down to re-commit this Bill in order to exclude from the Provisional Order sites Nos. 10 and 23. Now site No. 10 has disappeared, and No. 23 remains. This is

  257
  rather a singular circumstance, and looks as though the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich has directed the Chairman of Ways and Means which site should be struck out, or whether either of them should be retained. His Motion was withdrawn, and yet he seems to have secured something. Now, why was one of these sites taken out and the other left in? Instead of debating the matter in this House, there appears to have been some private and secret arrangement, and it is from that point of view that I venture to submit to the Government that the privileges and rights of this House are most seriously affected. This is by no means a case which we ought to treat as an inadvertent error of a Department which has asked too much, and then it withdraws this request. I think we are entitled to have a more explicit statement from some member of the Government than we have had.
  LORD H. CECIL: The honourable and learned Member seems to suggest that there has been some communication apparently of a corrupt character with the Chairman of Ways and Means. That is entirely untrue. I conversed with the Vice-President in the ordinary course, and I anticipated that he would have to bring the matter before the House on the Motion to re-commit the Bill. As I explained before, when in the ordinary course the Government made the concession from the point of view I was maintaining I thought it was unnecessary to delay the business of the House, and, therefore, I took my notice off the Paper in the ordinary course. That is such a process as I suppose every Member of this House has been through, and it is a process which is constantly followed in the management of all Bills. In connection with this Bill there has been none of the mysterious negotiations which appear to infect the imagination of honourable Members who have spoken. I cannot help thinking that behind these manifestations of regard for the privileges and procedure of this House there is some other anxiety in the minds of honourable Gentlemen opposite in this matter. I rather think they entertain the hope that they will prevent this kind of thing happening again, that they will prevent those honourable Members who are interested in Voluntary schools from protesting against the erection of un-
  258
  necessary Board schools, and prevent the Government listening with a just and impartial ear to our statement of the case. Those who take an interest in Voluntary schools do not desire to conceal that it is part of their policy to prevent the erection of unnecessary Board schools, and that they will use their position and influence in this House or in the other House——
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: For Mr. Hooley.
  LORD H. CECIL: I do not understand what the honourable Member is referring to. I repeat, we will use our position to procure the excision from any Provisional Order Bill of any unnecessary school which the present Progressive majority of the London School Board desire to put up We do not mind Government time being wasted in discussions of this kind, and if honourable Members opposite think they will prevent any chairman doing his duty towards the schools of London by any display of impatience they make a great mistake.
  MR. J. W. MELLOR: After hearing the speech of the noble Lord the House will, I feel certain, have come to the conclusion that this is a more serious business than was at first generally supposed. I do not think, however, for reasons which I will submit to the House, that any fault, is to be found with the Unopposed Bill Committee. That Committee consists, as the honourable Member for Bodmin has pointed out, of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the counsel to the Speaker, and a Member of the House. The Committee has, in my opinion, a judicial position, and it is more or less at the mercy of the agents who appear before it, and, in the case of a Provisional Order Bill such as this, the agents for the Department which has control of the Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means has, under the circumstances, no knowledge of the persons to whom notice should be given. There is no person before him who can tell him that notice should be given to the School Board, to this local body, to that person, or to anyone. The Chairman of the Committee has no means of judging on the point, and, as I submitted to the House

  259
  some time ago, it would be a good thing if some independent officer could come to the assistance of the Committee under such circumstances. The Committee has undoubtedly judicial functions in cases of this kind, and I think it is most important that every person interested should appear before the Committee and give information. The honourable Member for Bodmin says this is a small matter, because, it is only the exclusion of a school site; but, as the honourable Member behind me pointed out, it is a very important matter, because it concerns the taking of land. The site in question was originally put into the Bill by the School Board, and afterwards adopted by the Department, passed through the House of Lords, and then brought before the Unopposed Bill Committee. Upon whom does the responsibility for this matter rest? Most undoubtedly it rests upon the Department. The Department ought to have given notice to the School Board, so that the Board's solicitor might have been there to give any explanation or evidence that might be required. The solicitor was not called upon, because the Chairman at the time had no knowledge as to who should receive notice. The Vice-President of the Council of Education says, "We wished to strike this site out of the Bill, but we had not time to give notice to the School Board." But the first duty of the Department was to apply to the Chairman of Ways and Means of the Unopposed Bill Committee, and ask for an adjournment, explaining the reason of the request. The London School Board originally promoted this Bill. It was in substance the Board's Bill, and, therefore, to proceed in their absence, and without giving notice to them as the persons most interested, is trifling with Provisional Order procedure. I venture to submit to the House that this is a much more important matter than it seems at first sight, and I hope the effect of this discussion will be to prevent any public Department proceeding again without giving due notice to every person concerned.
  MR. CROMBIE: I rise in no spirit of hostility to the Government on this matter, but merely to point out that the whole system
  260
  of procedure by Provisional Order has been brought into disrepute in connection with this matter. I would also remind the House that the Government introduced a Private Procedure Bill applying to Scotland. A Select Committee considered it and agreed——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member cannot discuss that subject in connection with the particular matter before the House.
  MR. CROMBIE: I merely wished to say that the system of procedure by Provisional Order was recommended as a solution of Private Bill procedure, and is so important that I hope the Government will say something on the subject, and will not allow the whole system of Provisional Order to be brought into disrepute by what seems to be simply and solely the mismanagement of one Department.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: There are two points to find fault with in connection with this question. The first is that, after this Bill was signed by the Chairman, it was altered. We should like to know from the Chairman of the Committee upon what principle that was done. It has always been understood that when once a Bill has been signed by the Chairman of the Committee it is done with, and no alteration can be made. Then there is the point why the Department did not make up their minds to have this alteration made sooner; and why, whether it was an important or an unimportant alteration, the Committee should alter the rules of the House and create a precedent by altering this Bill without notice? It is quite true that alterations have been made by the Department, as in the case of the Corporation of Coventry Bill, but there a fortnight's notice was given, and the alteration was made in the House, not outside. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich seems to have thought that we accused him of some corrupt interview with the Chairman of Ways and Means. But we did not accuse him of having any corrupt interview; what we complained of is that this question was dealt with outside of the House without the cognisance

  261
  of the House; we also complain of the position taken up by honourable Members regarding what they call unnecessary Board schools, because we consider that the School Board, which was elected for this purpose, knows better than the noble Lord and his friends what school boards are necessary. I hope that some answer will be given upon the two points
  I have mentioned—why the Bill was altered after being signed by the Chairman, and why this precedent of altering by the Department without notice has been created.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 98.—(Division List No. 267.)

  AYES.

  Aird, John

  Drage, Geoffrey

  McArthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  McKillop, James

  Arnold, Alfred

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Milton, Viscount

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Monk, Charles James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Goschen,RtHn.G.J.(St.G'rg's)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Bethell, Commander

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gretton, John

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greville, Captain

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Rutherford, John

  Brassey, Albert

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hill, Lord A. (Down, W.)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Butcher, John George

  Hornby, William Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Houston, R. P.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Howard, Joseph

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Howell, William Tudor

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. H. Cecil

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Chaloner, Capt, R. G. W.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

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

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chaplin. Rt. Hon. Henry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kenrick, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Kenyon, James

  Talbot,RtHn.J.G.(Oxf'dUny.)

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Knowles, Lees

  Verney, Hon. Richd. Greville

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lafone, Alfred

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Curzon,RtHn.G.N.(Lanc,SW)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Williams, Joseph P. (Birm.)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lowles, John

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Maclure, Sir John William

  NOES

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

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Price, Robert John

  Asher, Alexander

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  Randell, David

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. H.

  Holburn, J. G.

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Birrell, Augustine

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roche, Hon. Jas. (E. Kerry)

  Blake, Edward

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Brigg, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Souttar, Robinson

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lough, Thomas

  Steadman, William Charles

  Cawley, Frederick

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  MacDonnell,Dr.M.A.(Qn's C.)

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Colville, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, K.)

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy

  McEwan, William

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Crombie, John William

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davitt, Michael

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks)

  Wayman, Thomas

  Dillon, John

  Mendl, Sigisimund Ferdinand

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Norton, Captain Cecil Wm.

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

  Dunn, Sir William

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

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (S'th'mpt'n)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Woodall, William

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

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

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Kelly, James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. William McArthur and Mr. Causton.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Perks, Robert William

  Harcourt, Rt Hon. Sir Wm.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  On the question that the Bill be read a third time, Sir W. Harcourt rose to address the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the right honourable Gentleman has already spoken on the main question.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I spoke once on the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill, and once on the Motion for adjournment. What I was really going to ask is, whether it is the fact that we are going to be debarred from discussing this Bill after what has taken place, without any statement on the part of those who are responsible for the lead of the House? We have appealed over and over again for some statement as to the practice of this House in a matter of great importance, and we have had no answer on the part of the Government and those who are responsible in this matter. Sir, I do not see here the Chairman of Committees, otherwise I should have liked to ask the question as to what is the practice in respect to the alteration of Provisional Order Bills after they have been signed
  264
  by the Chairman of Committees, without notice of the ground of any such alteration. That lies at the root of the whole matter; and it is a thing which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin was either ignorant of or passed over. He fails to tell us how often, under his conduct, Provisional Order Bills have been altered in material particulars after they have been signed by the Chairman. If he introduced that practice into the House it is one I never heard of, and it is one which I know his predecessors and his successors have never adopted. If he is ignorant of the matter I am happy to enlighten him. I think it is a serious matter. I put it in this way: supposing the Provisional Order Bill is affecting a great landowner, and that great landowner has one of those ordinary conversations which the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had with the Department in charge of the Bill, in consequence of which the interests of that landowner are consulted without any reference to the persons affected by that alteration. Is that the practice

  265
  which was approved of by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin?
  MR. COURTNEY: My right honourable Friend has attributed to me that which I have expressly repudiated. I have said nothing of the kind—no such practice could be possible in my time, and there is no such practice now. What has been done is quite distinct from that.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Honourable Members will judge of the subtle distinction which the right honourable Gentleman has endeavoured to draw, but which no ordinary intellect can discover. What has been altered is a Bill which was substantially initiated by the School Board, which was adopted by the Education Department, which was passed in both Houses of Parliament up to the point of the signature of it by the Chair man of Committees, and, it is now admitted, on the private instigation of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich——
  MR. SPEAKER (interposing): I find I was right in what I said just now. The right honourable Gentleman did address the House on the previous question. He was followed by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and by the Member for the Wick Burghs.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am sorry, Sir, that my recollection was in error, and I apologise.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Sir, that I did not hear the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman; but I did, on a former occasion, give an explanation of the part I took in the matter. I acted as Chairman of the Unopposed Bill Committee in the ordinary way. No representations were made to me by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich; he never spoke to me on the subject, neither did the honourable Member for North Camberwell, who, I believe, was interested in the matter. I struck plan 10 out of the schedule of the Bill at the request of the Department, as voiced by the right
  266
  honourable Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council before the Bill was reported to the House——
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: After signature?
  THE CHAIRMAN: After signature, of course. I always sign a Bill before the schedule is taken, and this alteration was not made in the Bill itself, but in the schedule. But that is a technical point which I do not wish to lay any stress upon. It constantly happens that, although a Bill has gone through, I do not report it immediately to the House. In fact, to-day I reported a Bill to the House which I signed a week ago, on account of the parties not being ready. That is only another example of what occurred in this Provisional Order Bill. The alteration was made in due course, and at the suggestion of the Education Department, and of that Department alone, and the Amendment was reported in ordinary course. I heard the remarks which fell from the right honourable Gentleman my predecessor in office, and with the main part of them I entirely agree. There was one part of the remarks of my right honourable Friend with which I cannot agree, and that was when he spoke of having the parties before him and hearing evidence. I doubt whether my right honourable Friend ever did such a thing. I am sure I should decline to listen to anybody except the promoters of the Bill. I have no power to administer an oath. If any opposition is raised, the proper course is to send it upstairs, in order that evidence may be heard. There is a tribunal set up for hearing matters of that kind, and I have never heard of anyone in my position hearing evidence after swearing a witness and then coming to a decision. I would not take it upon myself, because I consider that any such course would be outside my duties, and I should respectfully decline to entertain it. I am compelled, in my belief, if the promoters of a Bill come before me and say, "We wish to strike out certain clauses," I am com-

  267
  pelled to accept their statement and strike them out. I have no power to force that Bill to be gone on with. I a party comes before me and says, "I want the eighth clause struck out," I am compelled to do so. That is all that occurred in this case, and I need not go through the circumstances again.
  MR. MELLOR: Sir, the importance of this matter has not been diminished by the remarks of my right honourable Friend the Chairman of Committees. I wish to explain that if a matter was brought before me, as Chairman of the Unopposed Bill Committee, in which I thought that explanation or plans should be given, what I should have done would be to receive any explanation offered, which probably would enable me to deal
  with the clause. With regard to the question of evidence, I quite agree with my right honourable Friend that it would be inconvenient to examine and cross-examine witnesses. The importance of the matter is this: if the Chairman of the Unopposed Bill Committee sees that it would be a matter that would require witnesses, then I think he ought to report it specially to the House, and send the matter to the Committee upstairs, so that all the persons interested might be heard.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question is that this Bill be now read a third time.
  The House divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 104.—(Division List No. 268.)

  AYES.

  Aird, John

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. G.

  Allhusen, A. H. E.

  Curzon,RtHn.G.N.(Lanc,SW)

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. L.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Kenrick, William

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kenyon, James

  Bagot, Capt. J. F.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Baird, John George Ales.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Knowles, Lees

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  Lafone, Alfred

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lawrence,SirEDurning-(Corn.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket,

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loder, G. W. E.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Bethell, Commander

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lowles, John

  Bill, Charles

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St.G'rg's)

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  McKillop, James

  Brassey, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Monk, Charles James

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gretton, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Butcher, John George

  Greville, Captain

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Halsey, Thomas Fdererick

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hill, Lord A. (Down, W.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Hornby, William Henry

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Houston, R. P.

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, Joseph

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Howell, William Tudor

  Purvis, Robert

  Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. C.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Cornwallis, F. Stanley W.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Smith, J. P. (Lanark)

  Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Rutherford, John

  Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUny.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. H.

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew)

  Webster, Sir R, E. (I. of W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  NOES.

  Abraham W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Asher, Alexander

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Price, Robert John

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H.

  Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

  Randell, David

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Roberts, John B. (Eifion)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Holburn, J. G.

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

  Balfour, Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Birrell, Augustine

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Brigg, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Burns, John

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Steadman, William Charles

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Clark. Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  MacDonnell, Dr.M.A. (Q'nsC.)

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Thomas, A. Glamorgan, E.)

  Colville, John

  McDermott, Patrick

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

  McEwan, William

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Crombie, John William

  McKenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph, (Barnsley)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Wayman, Thomas

  Davitt, Michael

  Mellor. Rt. Hon. J. (York)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Dillon, John

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Montagu, Sir S. Whitechap'l)

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W.R.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

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

  Woodall, William

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Woodhouse, Sir JT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Oldroyd, Mark

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. William McArthur and Mr. Causton.

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  O'Malley, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Perks, Robert William

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Saturday.

  WINDSOR AND ASCOT RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  WATH-UPON-DEARNE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  CHELSEA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  SEAHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MESSAGE FOM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL,
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL,
  with Amendments.

  BODIES CORPORATE (JOINT TENANCY) BILL. [H.L.]
  That they have passed a Bill intituled—
  "An Act for enabling bodies corporate to hold property in joint tenancy."

PETITIONS.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  From Hanley, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Hanley, Shipton, and Bellinger (2); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Account [presented 27th July] to be printed. [No. 323.]
  EAST INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Paper [presented 27th July] to be printed. [No. 324.]
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  COPY presented of the Annual Local Taxation for the year 1896–97, Part VI. (Accounts of Highway Authorities in Rural Districts) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 325.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (OLDHAM).
  Copy presented of Resolution of the Council of the Borough of Oldham, re-dividing the Parliamentary and Municipal Borough of Oldham into Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (GENERAL REPORT).
  Copy presented of General Report to the Board of Trade on the Capital, Traffic, and Expenditure of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Copy presented of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the Quarter ended 30th June, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1898–99).
  Supplementary Estimate presented of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1899, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 326.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITY (SCOTLAND) (CONDITIONS OF CONTRACTS).
  Return ordered, "showing in respect of each Local Authority in Scotland whether the Contracts entered into by the Local Authority for the execution of works specify any conditions as to the wages to be paid by the contractor, or other conditions with respect to the persons employed by him; and, if so, what are the conditions so specified."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return ordered "of Revenue and Expenditure of the Post Office for each year from 1869–70 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 380 of Session 1897), and an Estimate for the same for the year ended 31st day of March, 1898."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  POST OFFICE (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).
  Return ordered, "of Revenue and Expenditure of the Post Office for each year from 1869–70 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 381 of Session 1897), and an Estimate of the same for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1898."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
BILLS ADVANCED.
  KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for Saturday.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON POOR FUND BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
QUESTIONS.

  NEWFOUNDLAND TREATY SHORE.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what answer has been received from the French Commodore on the Newfoundland coast to the protest by the British Commodore against the erection of huts by the French at Flat Bay as contrary to the Treaty of Utrecht; and whether it has been decided to send to Newfoundland a Commission of Inquiry into the French shore question?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): (1) The French Commodore does not admit that the hut in question is contrary to the Treaty, but has stated that the owner, not having been able to use it for the purpose of his
  274
  fishery as he had intended, will remove it about the end of July. (2) The question of a Commission of Inquiry into the "Treaty shore" question is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  LANCASHIRE AND THE IRISH PIG INDUSTRY.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has succeeded with the authorities in Lancashire to allow Irish reared pigs to be kept by the people of that county for fattening purposes?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): I have brought the representations made to me by the honourable Member under the notice of the Lancashire local authority, but sufficient time has not yet elapsed for me to receive any communication from them on the subject. But the honourable Member must clearly understand that I cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by any local authority in regard to this matter.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN IRELAND.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he state what is the total number of cottages authorised under the Labourers Acts up to the latest date for which the figures can be given; the amount of loans sanctioned for the purpose; and the proportion of cottages authorised and loans sanctioned in the four provinces, Ulster, Connaught, Minister, and Leinster respectively; and whether he has considered the desirability of making special grants for the housing of the working classes in districts to which the Labourers Acts do not apply?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The number of cottages authorised to be built in Ireland under the Labourers Acts to the 31st March last

  275
  was 15,748, and the total amount of loans sanctioned by the Treasury for the purpose to that date was £1,909,311. In Ulster the number of cottages authorised to be built was 270; in Connaught, 127; in Munster, 8,926: and in Leinster, 6,425. The loans sanctioned amounted to £40,324 in Ulster; £13,163 in Connaught; £1,031,869 in Munster; and £823,954 in Leinster. As regards the second paragraph, loans amounting to £258,860 have been sanctioned to the 31st March last in connection with, the erection of houses for the working classes residing in towns, to which the Labourers Acts do not apply.

  SALUTING POSTMASTERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if there are any, and, if so, what, departmental rules instructing postmen to salute their superiors when they may chance to pass on the street; and, if no such rules exist, can he state on whose authority the postmaster of Harrogate has issued a notice to the postmen instructing them to salute their superiors in future?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General has not thought it necessary to issue such an order, in the confident belief that the right judgment of the staff will incline them to act thus of their own accord. The notice at Harrogate was issued by the postmaster in the exercise of his own discretion.

  GLASGOW SORTERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the double increment offered to sorting clerks, in accordance with a recommendation contained in the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee, has not yet been obtained by any officer in the sorting department of the Glasgow
  276
  Post Office; will he explain why the regulation, sanctioned last January, to the effect that instruction is to be imparted by the staff temporarily detached for the purpose, has not been, and is not being, carried out at Glasgow; also, why no reply has yet been given to the memorial which was addressed to the Postmaster General during the month of May this year; and whether the Postmaster General will take immediate steps to provide accommodation for sorting clerks at Glasgow who may be desirous of qualifying in telegraphy in order to earn a double increment and so render the recommendation referred to operative and effective?
  MR. HANBURY: There has been considerable difficulty at Glasgow in making arrangements for giving instruction in telegraphy to the sorting staff, owing specially to a want of space, but measures have now been sanctioned which will admit of the requisite facilities being afforded. The receipt of the memorial referred to was acknowledged, and now that the necessary arrangements have been made, a reply will be sent to it.

  CHANNEL ISLANDS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the existing Admiralty charts of the Channel Islands are inaccurate or deficient; and, if not, for what purpose fresh soundings are necessary; and on what grounds Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney are included by the Admiralty in the category of rocky and uninhabited islands, the coasts of which may be explored without protest by foreign ships of war?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St.): The charts of the Channel Islands are neither inaccurate, nor, in the ordinary sense, deficient. In Ins second Question the honourable Member has, of course, read into my answer what I did not mean and what I did not say. The Channel Islands include, besides the better-known islands of Jersey, Guernsey

  277
  Alderney, and Sark, groups of rocks and islands which cannot be navigated by means of a chart only; but the honourable Member is probably aware that in all properly navigated vessels, and especially in men-of-war, the lead is kept going for the safety and guidance of the ship whenever the ship is near the shore, no matter what the nationality of it may be. To the uninitiated it may appear as if surveys are being made, but surveys cannot be made in this manner, nor indeed are they wanted when a proper chart already exists.

  ARMY RECRUITS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the total of 18,000 men, recently furnished to the House as being the number of recruits obtained for the Army during the first six months of the present year, represents the number of recruits enlisted or of recruits attested?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): Recruits attested, Sir.

  NEWBLISS MAGISTRACY.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the vacancy caused in the Newbliss magistracy, county Monaghan, by the death of Mr. Patrick Duffy, J.P., has been filled by the appointment of a Protestant gentleman; and, seeing that Roman Catholic representation is very low on the Newbliss bench, will he use his opportunities to have it improved?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Two gentlemen, both of whom, I understand, are Protestants, have been appointed to the Commission of the Peace for this district since the death of Mr. Duffy. As regards the second paragraph, I have nothing to add to my replies to previous similar inquiries addressed to me by the honourable Member.

  KHARIAR GRIEVANCES.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has yet been able to consider and reply to the petitions presented to him by Lai Brijraj Sinh, and other Zemindars of Khariar in the district of Raipur, praying for the redress of certain grievances?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The memorials are still under consideration; but I hope to send a reply to India upon them by the middle of next month.

  NANNING.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have persisted in the demand, made by Sir C. Macdonald on the lath and 19th January, 1898, for the opening of the port of Nanning; whether the French Government have persisted in their protest against the opening of that port, as to which Sir C. Macdonald reported on 31st January, 1898, that the French chargé d'affaires had spoken very violently to the Chinese Government against it; and whether he can say if any progress has been made since the 31st January towards reconciling the demand made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government with the protest against the granting of that demand made on behalf of the French Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): I am unable to make any statement at this moment about Nanning.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the right honourable Gentleman noticed the last paragraph of the Question?
  MR. CURZON: I regret I am unable to make any statement.

  YANG-TSZE VALLEY.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  279
  Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have now agreed with the Chinese Government on any more exact definition of the boundaries of the Yang-tsze Valley, which the Chinese Government have undertaken to alienate, than is contained in the Blue Book on China recently issued, wherein the territory to which the undertaking applies is variously described on 30th December, 1897, as the Yang-tsze Valley, and on the 14th February, 1898, as territories of the provinces, adjoining the Yang-tsze and as territory in the Yang-tsze region; and, if so, whether he can state what the, definition is that has been, agreed upon?
  MR. YERBURGH: May I ask whether the statement in the China Blue Book No. 1, that the territory in the Yang-tsze region should not be ceded to another Power, is held by Her Majesty's Government to be a definite and binding undertaking on the part of the Chinese not to alienate the territory?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice should be given of that question.
  MR. CURZON: The exact terms of the assurance given by the Chinese Government will be found in the Paper which has already been presented to the House. Perhaps I may be allowed to say in reply to the honourable Member for Chester that we do regard the assurance as a definite and binding undertaking on the part of the Chinese Government.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: My question was whether a more exact definition has been agreed upon. The definition in the Blue Book is not exact.
  MR. CURZON: There I differ from the honourable Member. I regard the definition in the Blue Book as being exact. A more exact definition than that contained in the Blue Book we have not obtained.

  WEI-HAI-WEI.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will, before the House rises for the Recess, be able to give any further information as to their plans with regard
  280
  to Wei-hai-Wei, and especially as to whether they propose to fortify and to garrison it, or any further information as to the general policy they propose to carry out with regard to China?
  MR. CURZON: Until the reports of the officers who have been sent to Wei-hai-Wei to make surveys and obtain information are received no decision can be arrived at with regard to what will be done there. The concluding Question was answered by the Leader of the House on Tuesday.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Am I to understand that officers have been gent to Wei-hai-Wei in order to advise the Government as to whether the place should be fortified?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is the Question, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is commenting upon the answer.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right honourable Gentleman say whether officers have been sent?
  MR. CURZON: May I also ask the honourable Member to listen to the replies that I deliver? I said that an answer to the Question contained in the last few lines was given by my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House on Tuesday.

  PORT ARTHUR.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government adhere to the statement made by Sir N. O'Conor, Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, to Count Mouravieff, as set forth in Sir N. O'Conor's dispatch of 16th March, 1898, that the closing of Port Arthur to foreign trade in the event, which has occurred, of its lease to Russia would as he considered be a direct infringement of Articles XXIV., LII, and LIV. of the Treaty of Tientsin?
  MR. CURZON: I do not think that the honourable Member has quite correctly interpreted the paragraph in the dispatch in question. The closing of both Port Arthur and Talienwan would certainly have been a direct infringement of the Articles named. But the closing of Port Arthur alone, not to British trade, but to British ships of war, would have been an infringement of Article LII. in particular.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he himself has read the dispatch on page 51, because if he has——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member must not fall into the practice of making a speech in putting a Question.

  ARMS TRAFFIC WITH PERSIA.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment of Mr. Justice Bigham, delivered on the 5th instant, in the case of Fraces, Times, and Co. v. the Sea Insurance Company, Limited, in which the learned judge mentioned found that the import of arms (into Persia) was not illegal according to the law of Persia as that law was administered in practice and enjoined, and the export of arms from England to Persia was certainly not contrary to our law; and whether, having regard to this judgment, Her Majesty's Government will consider the question of compensating the owners of the cargo of arms and ammunition stopped in transition on board the Beluchistan on 24th January by the commander of Her Majesty's ship Lapwing, and the owners of the arms and ammunition stored in Bushire which were seized and confiscated by Her Majesty's Consul-General in December, 1897, and by him handed over to the Persian authorities after they had passed the Persian customs, and duties upon them had been paid to and received by the Persian, authorities to whom they were so handed over?
  MR. CURZON: I have seen the report of the judgment in question, but I do not
  282
  think that its purport can be correctly estimated by the quotation of a single sentence from it. The learned judge found that there was something in the nature of a prohibition against the importation of arms into Persia, and that the plaintiffs probably knew of it; but that the circumstances as known to them were not material to the defendants in estimating the risk. The facts are not correctly stated in the second Question. The arms and ammunition stored in Bushire were not seized and confiscated by Her Majesty's Consul-General, who could have no authority to take such a step on Persian soil. They were seized by an official of the Persian Government, and the British Vice-Consul was present because the goods were in the possession of British subjects. Her Majesty's Government see no ground for interference unless, in the case of any of the arms seized either at Muscat or Bushire, the owners or consignees can prove that the arms were proceeding to or had entered Persia with the authority of the Persian Government, and the parties concerned have been advised, if they can produce such proofs, to represent their claims to the Consular authorities.
  MR. LOWE: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that Mr. Justice Bigham declared that the importation of arms into Persia was not illegal according to the law of Persia?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is repeating the Question on the Paper.
  MR. LOWE: If that is the law as laid down, I wish to know on what ground——
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is arguing the question; if he wishes further information he must give notice.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: Am I to understand that the right honourable Gentleman contests the lawfulness of the trade?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have always held the opinion, which I have more than once stated in the House, that the importation of arms and ammunition into Persia is illicit, and it is upon that assumption they have proceeded.

  VIVISECTION.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has consented to a vivisectional laboratory being attached to the Department of the Board of Agriculture, at which experiments may be made on horses, dogs, and other highly organised animals; and whether such experiments are allowed there without the use of anæsthetics?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: Our veterinary officers are at present engaged in an investigation into the curative and other properties of mallein, and they have also to diagnose suspected cases of rabies. For these purposes inoculation is requisite, and the officers in question have therefore obtained certificates, under the Act of 1876. There has been no new departure in this respect, it having been customary for many years past for my veterinary advisers to obtain such certificates for investigations connected with the suppression of contagious diseases amongst animals. Anæsthetics are employed in connection with the work under the second head above referred to, but not in cases under the first head. No experiments have at any time been made by my officers upon dogs.

  PROMOTION OF SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Galway I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with reference to the repeated assurances that the Treasury are willing and desirous of promoting capable second division clerks to the first division, there are any second division clerks in the Secretary's office of the General Post Office, or in the Inland Revenue Department, who have been recommended as qualified to fill vacancies in the first division in those Departments; and, if so, how many recommendations have been made?
  MR. HANBURY: No recommendation for the promotion of a second division clerk to a higher division clerkship has
  284
  been refused by the Treasury in either of the Departments mentioned. There is only one clerk of the second division in the Secretary's office of the General Post Office. Two second division clerks have recently been promoted to fill vacancies in the higher division in the Secretary's office of the Inland Revenue. Since 1893 15 second division clerks have been promoted to first division clerkships in the Legacy Duty office of the Inland Revenue—which clerkships are in ordinary course filled by examinations open only to qualified solicitors.

  ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS.
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the 2nd battalion of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, under Colonel Mainwaring, has been for the past 15 months under canvas in Crete, and that the conduct throughout that period of all ranks has been very favourably reported on by Sir Herbert Chermside, as well as by the senior naval officer, and that at a recent medical inspection of the regiment it was found free of contagious disease, and that only 14 out of nearly a thousand were unfit for active service, while the majority had between four and five years' service, and were over 22 years of age, whether the claim of the battalion, now under orders for Cairo, as a senior regiment in the Mediterranean, to the privilege of going to the front in the approaching advance on Khartoum may, if opportunity offers, be favourably considered.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg, at the same time, to ask the Under Secretary of State for War will he explain why the 2nd battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers, which has been stationed for 15 months in Crete, and when recently medically examined had 960 men of all ranks fit for active service, the men of all ranks of the battalion showing an average service of 4½ years, has been ordered to proceed to Cairo on garrison duty; whereas the Rifle Brigade, now at Malta, which only went out there this year, has been ordered to go

  285
  to the front for the purpose of taking part in the military operations in the Soudan; and is he aware that dissatisfaction exists among the Welsh Fusiliers in regard to this preference of the Rifle Brigade?
  MR. BRODRICK: The appropriation of corps to any particular expedition rests with the Commander-in-Chief, who has many points to take into consideration. Nothing has reached the War Office which would make us doubt that this distinguished regiment will cheerfully execute the duty committed to it in Lower Egypt, unless required in the Soudan.

  SEIZURE OF ILLICIT DISTILLATIONS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is the reason for the change that has been adopted in the table of illicit distillations in the Inland Revenue Report for the year ending 31st March, 1897; how the seizures in Ireland for that year were only two, against 1,388 and 1,107 in the two previous years; what is the difference between these two and the 1,544 seizures referred to in the Note, as made by the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether the rapid increase in seizures by the police, shown by the figures, has led the Inland Revenue authorities to distrust the reliability of the Constabulary Returns; what is the amount of the rewards which the constabulary receive for each seizure; and out of what fund does the money come?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): In the Inland Revenue Reports for the years previous to that ending the 31st March, 1897, no distinction was made between seizures made by the Revenue officers and those made by the Royal Irish Constabulary, but in the Report for that year it was thought better to show them separately. Seizures by the constabulary are made for the same offences as those by the Revenue officers. A reward of £2 is paid for every seizure made by the constabulary, and the money comes out of the Inland Revenue Vote.

  RATING VALUATIONS IN IRELAND.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the valuation of the premises of Mr. Martin Haier, of Kiltrellig, Kilbaha, county Clare, has been raised from £2 7s. to £9 10s.; and will he say on what principle such revisions are made by the Inland Revenue?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The rateable valuation of these premises has been increased, as stated. The necessity for a revision of the valuation, consequent upon alterations and additions to the premises, was brought before the Commissioner of Valuation by the clerk of the union, and was carried out in accordance with the principles laid down in the Valuation Acts. It was open to the individual named to appeal against the revised valuation, and I understand he has done so.

  ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF THE ARMY.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Accountant Generalship of the War Department will shortly become vacant; and whether the Secretary of State will consider the practicability of reorganising the financial control of Army funds by appointing from outside the Department a professional auditor and accountant possessing an actuarial diploma, and not necessarily a present member of the Civil Service?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The Accountant Generalship will fall vacant next month. A professional auditor and accountant, without knowledge of the Army system, could not satisfactorily discharge all the duties of the Accountant General of the Army. There are already two gentlemen in the War Office who have passed the examination of the Institute of Actuaries.

  CLERICAL WORK FOR RETIRED OFFICERS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Secretary of State will take into his consideration the claims of officers wounded in action, and rendered unfit for military service, but not incapacitated from performing clerical duties, for appointment to the clerical establishment (Class I.) of the War Department, instead of placing them on retired pay; and whether he will reserve some of these vacancies for retired officers of the Army Pay Corps who possess the requisite qualifications for performing the duties of principal clerks?
  MR. BRODRICK: The higher division clerks employed in the War Office are admitted between the ages of 22 and 24 years, after a severe competitive examination toy the Civil Service Commissioners, and their service cannot be described as merely clerical. It is highly improbable that officers who have left the Army owing to wounds, or for other reasons, who would presumably be wholly without experience of the duties performed by these gentlemen, would be fit to discharge those duties. A general change of this character would, in the Secretary of State's opinion, be detrimental to the efficiency of the Department, but he has every desire to afford employment in the War Office to retired officers in any capacity for which they are fitted.

  CLOGHER POOR RATE COLLECTOR.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds a sealed order, dated the 22nd July, has been issued to the Clogher Board of Guardians declaring Ann Eliza Magill unfit for the office of poor rate collector and removing her from that office; whether he has seen the report of the last meeting of the guardians, when, after hearing Mr. Kelly, Local Government Board inspector, the guardians re-elected Miss Magill by 21 votes, as against six given for John Roberts, a
  288
  publican, and that a leading member of the board said that should the Local Government Board make another appointment he should hesitate to pay the rates to their collector; and whether he is aware that the supersession of Miss Magill is creating more difficulties than could possibly arise from the confirmation of her appointment?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The guardians having re-elected Miss Magill to the office of poor rate collector in violation of the order of the Local Government Board, which required them to proceed to the election of a qualified person to whom their objection would not apply, the Board had no alternative but to issue a sealed order removing her from the office. The proceedings referred to in the second paragraph took place at the meeting of the guardians held on the 16th inst., and not at their last meeting a week later. The third paragraph is one which I will not attempt to answer; but, as I have already explained to my honourable Friend, the Local Government, Board felt bound to act in connection with this matter on principles of general application.

  TRALEE MAILS.
  MR. ROCHE:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will direct that facilities be given for posting letters in the train leaving Tralee at 1.55 p.m., and thus enable letters to be answered the day they are received in Tralee and Killarney?
  MR. HANBURY: The provision of a letter box is confined to trains in which there are officers of the Department travelling who can take charge of and deal with the letters. No such, officer travels with the train in question. In any case there could scarcely be an interval available for reply at Tralee, as the delivery of the day mail letters in the town does not commence until 1.30 p.m., and replies would have to be carried to the station and posted before 1.55 p.m.

  VACCINATION OF PUPIL TEACHERS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is his intention to maintain in the Education Code the article which requires probationers for pupil teachership to show proof of vaccination before the Department assents to their indentures?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The Committee of Council have no intention of altering their rule which requires pupil teachers to be vaccinated before admission.

  MADRAS TENANCY BILL.
  SIR. W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Select Committee appointed to report on the Madras Tenancy Bill is to hold its meetings in the hills at Ootacamund; that all the non-official members of that Committee have declared their inability to attend the meetings held at that place; but that, in spite of protests, the Madras Government persists in holding the meetings at Ootacamund; and whether he will direct that proper opportunity shall be given to non-official members to discuss this important Bill in Committee?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Madras Tenancy Committee decided, by a majority of nearly two to one, to hold meetings at Ootacamund, two non-official members voting in the majority. The object of this exceptional step was to avoid further delay in dealing with the Bill, and to make use of the experience and knowledge of certain officers who will shortly retire. But in consequence of the difficulty which non-official members have in attending meetings at Ootacamund it has been decided that the proposed amendments shall, before they are finally adopted, be submitted for consideration to the Committee in Madras, when it is presumed that all the non-official members will be present.

  PENSIONS FOR INDIAN NATIVE SOLDIERS.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether 500 native soldiers have returned from the campaign on the North-West Frontier of India maimed for life by the loss either of an arm or a leg; whether, under Army Regulations, Vol. I., Part II., the pension to which these maimed soldiers are entitled is five rupees or 6s. 8d. per month, on which they are expected to maintain themselves and families; whether he is aware that great discontent has been caused among the men themselves, and among the Sikhs generally, by the fact that those who come under the first class for simple wounds receive four rupees a month, while those who are incapacitated in the manner indicated from further service, and in most cases from any work, receive only five rupees; and whether he will consider the advisability of revising the regulations in the direction of more generous treatment of men who have been incapacitated in the service of the Queen-Empress?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I am unable to give the number of native soldiers who have lost a limb in the recent operations. The pensions of private soldiers in such circumstances would vary, according to length of service, between five and 10 rupees a month; a corporal might receive as much as 14½ rupees. I am not aware that any discontent on the subject of wound pensions exists in the native army, but if it is so. I am confident that the Government of India must be conscious of the fact. In the absence of any representation from them, I do not propose to suggest any alteration in these pensions, which must, of course, be judged with reference to the general rate of wages and cost of living in India.

  ROYAL MUNSTER FUSILIERS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, although the shamrock was conferred upon the Royal Munster Fusiliers as a special badge in

  291
  the year 1881, no such badge appears upon any portion of the regimental uniform; and whether, in view of the fact that the Army List indicates the possession of this privilege, steps will be taken to enable the Royal Minister Fusiliers to wear the national emblem to which they are entitled?
  MR. BRODRICK: From the year 1881 the shamrock has been borne upon the colours of the Royal Minister Fusiliers, but has not been worn as a badge. Neither uniform nor badge has been changed in this regiment for 17 years, except as regards the new field cap. Before this was adopted it was seen by both battalions and was understood to meet their wishes.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not the fact that the shamrock-pattern lace is worn by every Irish regiment; and why should not the Royal Minister Fusiliers be allowed to wear the badge to which they are entitled?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot explain the reason for every badge that is worn in the Army; but our object is not to disturb them.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is any other regiment in the Army prohibited wearing its badge?
  MR. BRODRICK: That I cannot say.

  ROYAL MARINES.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to announce the concessions that are to be made to the Royal Marines in pay and ration allowances?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): The question is being fully inquired into, but I am not in a position at present to make any statement as to whether or not any alteration will be made.

  PETROLEUM FLASH POINT.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, the Select Committee on Petroleum having completed their investigation and agreed to recommend the raising of the flash point to 100 degrees, the Government, with a view to prevent loss of life from the sale of dangerous low-flash oil, will at once introduce a one-clause Bill raising the flash point in accordance with the Committee's recommendation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Lancs,): I am afraid that what the honourable Member asks is impossible. The Report is not yet even circulated, and there must be time for its consideration.
  MR. ASCROFT: Will the right honourable Gentleman give facilities for a private Member to introduce such a Bill if its operation is limited to 12 months?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No, Sir.

  FOOD WASTE IN WORKHOUSES.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Departmental Committee which was appointed last year to consider the possibility of preventing the great waste of food in workhouses and infirmaries have completed their inquiries; and, if not, whether he can furnish any information as to when the Report will be presented?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Committee have completed their inquiry, and have recently submitted their Report. The Report will be presented to Parliament at an early date.

  JHELUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
  MR. LEUTY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Commissioner of

  293
  Jullundur, when Deputy Commissioner at Jhelum, caused a high native official of the Public Works Department to be whipped because he did not salaam to the said deputy commissioner; whether the same gentleman was recently entrusted with the superintendence of delicate and important plague operations in the Jullundur Division; and whether it is proposed to take any steps in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have ascertained that it is not true that the officer who is now Commissioner of Jullundur caused a high native official to be whipped, as suggested in the Question. This being so, I do not propose to take any steps to question his fitness for any post to which he may recently have been appointed, though I regret the honourable Member did not verify, before he gave it currency, this grave imputation upon the character of a high official.

  LEAD POISONING IN THE POTTERIES.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there can be circulated to Members before Friday the Report of Dr. Oliver and Dr. Thorpe on Lead Poisoning in the Potteries, and whether he can state if the Report, recommends the use of fritted lead?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have received an interim Report from Dr. Oliver and Dr. Thorpe, but it is incomplete, and experiments are still being made; and I do not think it would be desirable, by publishing it, to anticipate their final and fuller Report which will embody and supersede it. The Report does contain a recommendation to the effect stated in the Question.
  MR. WOODALL: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman if he is able to report the result of the inquiries he promised to address on this subject to Continental Governments?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No, Sir.
  MR. WOODALL: When may we hope for it?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: As soon as we get the replies.

  PHOSPHORUS POISONING.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can explain how it is that in the monthly official Return of the Diseases of Occupations 13 cases of phosphorus poisoning are reported for June, 1898, as against none for June, 1897, but the whole 13 cases are shown to have occurred among adult male workers, and none among the other five classes of workers scheduled; and whether cases among women have been brought to his knowledge as having occurred in the month in question?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: There is a mistake in the figures; eight of the 13 cases were cases of women. The 13 cases are made up of the 12 cases (besides Lean's) which have been ascertained as having occurred at Bryant and May's during the years 1893 to 1898, and being first reported by the firm in June, were included in that month's list, and of one case which did not occur at a lucifer match factory.

  ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT IN SOUTH-WEST CHINA.
  MR. J. WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the action of the French Government in opposing the granting to the British Government of a concession for a railway from Burma to the Upper Yang-tsze, and in violently protesting against the opening of Nan-ning, on the West River, as a treaty port, whether he can state if the Government have taken any steps to uphold the provisions of the Agreement between Great Britain and France of January, 1896, for securing both nations equal rights, privileges, and advantages in South-West China?
  MR. CURZON: By the Declaration of January, 1896, France and Great Britain engage that any privileges or advantages conceded to either in the provinces of Yunnan and Szechuen shall, so far as rests with them, be extended and rendered common to both. The Chinese Government have agreed to the extension of the Burma railway into Yunnan when it has reached the Burmese frontier. There has not, therefore, been so far any necessity to take steps to uphold the Agreement referred to, which does not appear to have been either threatened or infringed. Nan-ning is not in Yunnan or Szechuen.
  MR. J. WALTON: Arising out of that, may I ask whether Nan-ning is not situated on the West River, which is the trading waterway for Yunnan, and ought not the waterway consequently to be open to navigation for British trade?
  MR. CURZON: That is a general proposition which I accept, and nobody could dispute it; but it has nothing to do with the Agreement referred to in the Question, which is confined to two provinces, in neither of which is Nan-ning situated.
  MR. J. WALTON: But the trade of Yunnan is affected.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been brought to his notice that police pensioners are not deriving the full benefit of the Police Superannuation Act of 1890 (in which it is clearly stated that pensions shall be computed on annual pay) through their pensions being calculated on 364 instead of on 365 days, whereby they lose the amount of one day's pension in each year; and whether he will take steps to rectify this grievance?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: It is the case that in the Metropolitan Police, to which I assume the honourable Member alludes, the pension is calculated on 52 weeks'
  296
  pay, and the fraction, of the week is disregarded; but it is not also the case that the men are not deriving the full benefit of the Act, inasmuch as fractional amounts are similarly disregarded to the advantage of the men in the contributions they make to their pension by way of rateable deductions, and the advantage they gain in this point more than counterbalances their loss in the other. There is no grievance, therefore, and I do not propose taking any action.

  PEKIN-HAN-KAU RAILWAY CONCES- SION.
  MR. J. WALTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will communicate to the House the reply of the Chinese Government to the application of Her Majesty's Government for full information as to whom, and on what terms and conditions, the concession for a railway from Pekin to Han-kau, in the Yang-tsze Valley, has been granted?
  MR. CURZON: The reply of the Chinese Government is to the effect that the concession in question has been granted to a Belgian syndicate, and that the terms and conditions will be communicated to Her Majesty's Government as soon as they are received from Shanghai. At the same time, the Chinese Government have formally assured Sir Claude MacDonald, and have requested him to convey the assurance to Her Majesty's Government, that the Russian Government are not interested financially or otherwise in the Pekin-Han-kau line, A similar statement has been made to Sir Claude MacDonald by the Belgian Minister at Pekin.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask if that assurance of the Chinese Government covers the Russo-Chinese Bank?
  MR. CURZON: I have given the assurance in the exact terms in which it was received by us.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has the concession or a large portion of it been parted with to the Russo-Chinese Bank?
  MR. CURZON: I have no information to that effect.

  CYPRUS RAILWAY AND HARBOUR.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a resolution of the Legislative Council of Cyprus, concerning the construction of a railway and a harbour in the island, has been received; and, if so, whether he has come to any decision on the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The resolution referred to has been received. I am now arranging for an examination of the question by engineering experts, upon receipt of whose reports Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to decide whether the works should be proceeded with.

  DOGS' MUZZLING ORDER.
  MR. TRITTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is now in a position to withdraw the Order relating to the muzzling of dogs in the metropolitan area south of the Thames?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The fact that an outbreak of rabies occurred at Bow so recently as the 8th June last shows, I am afraid, that, although the position has so substantially improved, there is still reason to believe that the disease lingers within the metropolitan area. My honourable Friend will understand that I am very anxious to avoid the necessity of reimposing any of the Muzzling Orders now in force when once they have been withdrawn, and under existing circumstances there would be a great danger that this would be the case so far as South London is concerned.

  SUPERNUMERARY SEAMEN AND MARINES ABROAD.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the numbers of supernumerary seamen and marines on naval stations abroad is fixed by any standard, percentage or otherwise, in relation to the
  298
  total personnel on such stations; what is the approximate number of supernumerary seamen and marines respectively on the China station; and whether the numbers of supernumerary seamen and marines respectively on that station have been increased within the last six months, and, if so, to what extent?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The number of supernumerary seamen and marines on naval stations abroad is not fixed by any standard or percentage in relation to the total personnel, but depends on the requirements of the various stations, and on the accommodation of the vessels composing the squadrons. The number of supernumeraries shown as disposable by a Return just received is as follows: 129 seaman ratings and 21 marine ratings; in addition, 73 seaman ratings were sent recently in H.M.S. Blenheim as supernumeraries for disposal on station.

  WAGES OF WOOLWICH ARSENAL AND PIMLICO CLOTHING FACTORY.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been brought to his notice that when the wages of the labourers at Woolwich Arsenal and Pimlico Clothing Factory were raised last year from. 19s. 6d. to 21s. the wages of those employed at the Enfield Small Arms Factory and Waltham Abbey Powder Mills were not raised, because house rents and the general cost of living being lower at the last-mentioned places no increase of wages was called for; whether he can state upon what grounds the wages were raised at Woolwich Dockyard by the Admiralty to a minimum of 21s., while allowed to remain at Deptford Victualling Yard at 20s., although house rent and the cost of living is, if anything, higher at Deptford than at Woolwich, and that, according to the Admiralty regulations, the workers at Deptford are compelled to live within two miles of the yard; and whether he will take steps to remedy this grievance?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I am aware of the facts mentioned in the first paragraph of the Question. In answer to the second and third

  299
  paragraphs I must refer the honourable Member to the answer given by me to similar Questions on the 16th June last, and to my statement in the discussion on the Naval Estimates on Friday last, to which I have nothing to add.

  COAL CONSUMPTION TRIAL IN THE NAVY.
  SIR A. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in the proposed coal consumption trials of the new cruisers, he will give instructions that the quantity of coal used by such auxiliary engines as are necessary to the working of the main engines shall be included as a part of the expenditure of the latter; also that the coal supplied shall be the ordinary screened Welsh coal used for normal sea purposes, and that the power in the boilers used for the test shall be the maximum of their design, and be kept in continuous work without change from one element to another?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: (1) It is the practice on Navy contract trials to include the coal consumption of all the auxiliary engines as a part of the expenditure of the main engines. (2) In the trials of the Diadem and Terrible the coal supplied will be the ordinary screened Welsh coal, used for normal sea purposes. (3) During the series of 60 hour trials of the Diadem about to be carried out there will be one at the hill sea-going continuous power when all the boilers will be in use. No pledge can be given to the other trials, but these will be carried out in the same manner as with tank boilers. The right honourable Gentleman must be well aware that tests at maximum powers are not usually carried out for longer periods than are specified in the contracts. In the Diadem and Europa, however, a special trial was carried out in each ship of 30 hours' duration, at full continuous sea-going power, using three stokeholes only out of four, or 78 per cent. of the boiler capacity, and in these cases the boilers were not changed during the trials, and as the sea-going power is three-quarters of the maximum this was all but the maximum power of the boilers in use.

  BRITISH CLAIMS AGAINST TURKEY.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the reply of the Porte, in reference to the demands made on behalf of British subjects for compensation for losses sustained by them during the Armenian massacres, repudiates all responsibility for such losses; and, if so, what action the British Government propose to take?
  MR. CURZON: AS I stated on the 25th instant, the reply of the Porte, which is of the character described in the Question, was only received on that day, and Her Majesty's Government must at least have time to consider it before they are prepared to state what action they propose to take.

  TRADE WITH CHINA.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the competition on some classes of goods in China has forced a restriction on the import of certain classes of fabrics of which this country once had a monopoly; Whether the Government intend to take steps to secure every available river, lake, and canal in China being thrown open to steam navigation without any restriction as to place of call: whether the Government contemplate any means by which steps will be taken to obtain the opening up of the River Yang-tsze and the surveying by the Government of same, with a view to its being proved suitable for steam navigation, and whether charts showing the width, depth, and configuration of banks for every 10 feet of rise of water will be prepared; whether he is aware that the Yang-tsze regulations in respect to maritime' customs cause great inconvenience to traders; whether any communications have been made to the Chinese Government in regard to same, and whether it is the intention of the Government, considering the great trade concessions obtained by Russia, and other foreign Powers in China, to take any steps to further British commerce in that empire; and when and how the same

  301
  will be done, and on whom will the responsibility rest?
  MR. CURZON: I am aware that there is serious commercial competition in China. I stated on the 25th inst. that revised regulations for the inland waterways of China, as approved by Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin, had been agreed to by the Chinese Government, and were about to be issued. The question of the Yang-tsze navigation is one the importance of which is well known to Her Majesty's Government. I do not know what the concluding lines of the honourable Member's Question may mean. He is well acquainted with the steps that are being, and have been, taken by Her Majesty's Government for the furtherance of British commerce in China.

  BICYCLES FOR THE ARMY.
  SIR A. HICKMAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that a specification has lately been sent out for certain bicycles required for the Army, stipulating that practically all the component parts shall be made by a particular firm; whether he is aware that all the first-class makers themselves manufacture the component parts of their machines; and whether, in any future requirements, he will give makers a free hand to supply the best possible machines at the lowest possible price without the restrictions referred to?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: About 100 bicycles have been ordered for experimental purposes, and the specification adopted required that certain of the components should be those of a particular firm. When the result of the experiments are known, and the pattern is finally decided upon, competition will be thrown open to the bicycle trade generally, in the event of a large order being given out.
  SIR A. HICKMAN: And then will all the component parts be supplied by one firm?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: No; I think the competition will be thrown open.

  ADMINISTRATION OF CRETE.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government propose that the coast towns of Crete should be governed by the four naval officers commanding the European squadrons in Cretan waters, and the interior by a junta of the insurgents, now in possession of the lands and property of the Mussulman refugees; what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to relieve the terrible distress now prevalent among the Mussulman refugees in Crete; and whether Her Majesty's Government and the other Powers have any defined policy for the restoration of justice and the regular government of Crete?
  MR. CURZON: I described the scheme for the provisional government of Crete in answer to a Question on the 14th instant. Her Majesty's Government have hitherto given relief to both parties, but the circumstances do not appear at the moment to be sufficiently urgent to demand a further expenditure of public funds for the purpose. The new scheme of government has been devised for the objects mentioned in the concluding paragraph.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I desire to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether my first Question accurately describes the scheme of the Government?
  MR. CURZON: The honourable Member can look at the answer I gave on this point when he was absent.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Can the right honourable Gentleman do anything to relieve the distress of a newspaper called England?
  MR. CURZON: Of what?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Of a newspaper called England, which, I understand, is in a bad way?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House in what manner and

  303
  on what occasion the other great European Powers besides England have declared themselves opposed to the appointment of a Christian Governor General of Crete who is an Ottoman subject?
  MR. CURZON: The honourable Member once before asked this Question, and I prepared a reply, with the dates and references. The honourable Member did not appear in his place to put the Question, and I cannot without further search lay my hands on my reply. The references are to be found in the Blue Books already laid before Parliament.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I shall be quite satisfied on the present occasion if the right honourable Gentleman will state whether I am to understand that the other great European Powers have declared themselves opposed to the appointment in question. I will put the question as to details on another day.
  MR. CURZON: I did state upon a previous occasion, in answer to the honourable Gentleman, that the other Great Powers had declared themselves opposed to the appointment of a Cretan Governor General who was an Ottoman subject. The honourable Gentleman then put down a Question asking me on what occasion this had been done, but, unfortunately, he did not put the Question, and I have mislaid my reply, and I really cannot ask the officials of the Foreign Office to look up all the dates and references again.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Do I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that he prepared his answer before I put down the Question on the Paper? I never put it on the Paper.
  MR. CURZON: I am afraid that the honourable Gentleman's memory is at fault. He did put a Question on the Paper, and only on seeing his Question did I prepare a reply. Obviously, I could not prepare a reply until I had seen the Question.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state the total amount of the valuation of agricultural land in Scotland which has been taken or certified as the agricultural land entitled to relief of rates under the provisions of the Agricultural Rates (Scotland) Act, 1896?
  MR. ANSTRUTHER: My right honourable Friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The total amount of the valuation of agricultural land in Scotland, as certified by the Secretary for Scotland, in terms of the Agricultural Rates (Scotland) Act, 1896, is £5,783,489.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the can state the total amount of the valuation of agricultural land in England which has been taken or certified as the agricultural land entitled to relief of rates under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The latest returns furnished to the Board show that the rateable value of the agricultural land is £24,348,461.

  CRETE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the late Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Marquis Visconti Venosta, laid the foundation for a permanent occupation at Suda Bay, in Crete; whether, as Russia desires a port in the Mediterranean, the island of Crete is now to be permanently occupied by the Powers; and whether the intention of nominating a governor and forming a provisional administration has been abandoned?
  MR. CURZON: The statement in the first paragraph is without foundation.

  305
  The answer to the second and third is No.
  DR. TANNER: Then, are we to understand that Russia does not desire a port in the Mediterranean?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question has been answered.

  DERVISHES AND UGANDA.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Belgian officers on the Congo State frontier have applied for British help; and if there is any probability of the Dervishes, reinforced by Manyama, attacking Toru, Unyoro, and Uganda; and, if so, what steps will be taken to resist them?
  MR. CURZON: No application has been received from the Belgian officers for British help, nor does there seem to be any probability that the Dervishes will attack Toru, Unyoro, and Uganda.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  MR. MONK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House in what manner the sum of £500,000 allotted for rifle ranges under the Military Works Act, 1897, has been allocated, specifying the localities in which the ranges are situated, and the amount of grant in each case?
  MR. BRODRICK: In the Act of 1897 the provision for ranges is not separated from that for lands for manœuvring and mobilisation. It is not practicable, in answer to a Question, to give in detail the distribution of the expenditure on ranges; but it is being spread as widely as possible.

  INDIAN FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is able to say on what day he will make his financial statement?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have already made the annual financial statement and I do not propose to make a second, but I propose to set up a committee upon Indian accounts, which will enable Members of the House to call attention to questions connected with Indian administration in which they are interested.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: On what day?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I presume it will be after the Appropriation Bill has been introduced.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state on what date the Indian Budget will be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In all probability it will be taken on the same day as the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill. I cannot make an absolute pledge on the subject, but that has been the usual custom, and that custom will be followed probably in the present year.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: Then do I gather it will not be taken next week?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It cannot be taken next week.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  SIR F. EVANS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is now able to state whether the petition of the temporary civil assistants of the Ordnance Survey for superannuation allowance will be granted; and, if so, upon What terms and conditions?
  MR. HANBURY: The honourable Member is probably referring to a statement which the temporary civil assistants, with the permission of my right honourable Friend, laid before me some time ago. I have had the matter under consideration, but I am not in a position to announce any final decision on this point to-day.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what progress has been made in the negotiations with the North Sea Powers with, a view to an international arrangement of sea fishery regulations?
  MR. CURZON: No such negotiations have been commenced, but communications are being exchanged with the Swedish Government with a view to an international inquiry into questions connected with the North Sea fisheries.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I will put a Question to the Lord Advocate to-morrow.
  In answer to Mr. PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.) Mr. CURZON said the negotiations were entered upon, of course, in the hope that they would be conducted to a successful issue.

  NORTH-WEST FRONTIER.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information as to the reported fighting on the North-West Frontier of India between the forces of the Nawab of Dir and the Bajauris; and whether he is in a position to state the circumstances which have led to the outbreak of hostilities?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: On the 24th of July I received information that the Nawab of Dir had started for Jandol and subsequently I learnt that on that same day the Nawab had lost 81 killed and wounded, and Bajaur 136 killed and woundied1. There has for long been friction between the Khan of Barwa, supported by Dir, and Umra Khan's brothers and cousins of Manda, and this dispute has no doubt led to the present hostilities.

  ARKLOW HARBOUR.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for West Wicklow I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has seen the last Report issued by the Arklow Harbour Commis-
  308
  sioners, in which it is stated that the bar has been silted up so high that vessels have either to be discharged by lighters in the roadstead or put into Wicklow or Kingstown and have their cargoes sent back by rail; that the risk and the expense entailed upon shipowners have seriously injured the trade of Arklow; that, unless immediate measures are taken to secure deeper water, the new industries recently established must languish, and the £37,000 spent on the new piers will become a total loss; and whether he has communicated with the Irish Board of Works with a view to providing a remedy that would meet the circumstances of the case?
  MR. HANBURY: I have seen the Report referred to, the purport of which is correctly stated in the first paragraph. The responsibility with regard to this harbour does not rest with the Government, but with the local harbour commissioners, of which body only one member is nominated by the Government. I am, however, communicating with the Board of Works with respect to the condition of affairs disclosed in the Report.

  SCOTCH COAL FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. M'KILLOP: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what steps, if any, have been taken to secure additional supplies of coal from Scotch or other sources?
  MR. MACARTNEY: A careful examination has been made of the different coals not ordinarily used in Her Majesty's ships which have been recently offered. Experimental trials of the following coals will be made in the usual course at Portsmouth, viz.:—Oakley Collieries, Limited, Oakley; Alloa Coal Company, Bannockburn Navigation; Morningside Coal Company, Limited, Morningside (Balonrigg); Kinneil Cannel and Coking Coal Company, Limited, Kinneil Navigation; Ellerbeck Collieries, Limited, Orrell. Invitations to tender for the following coals will be issued whenever supplies are required during the continuance of the Welsh coal strike,

  309
  viz.:—J. Nimmo and Company, Limited, Longrigg Navigation; Fife Coal Company, Limited, Aitken Navigation; R. Forrester, Roughrigg; R. Addie and Sons' Collieries, Limited, Denny (Herbertshire); A. G. Moore and Company, Denny (Carronrigg); Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries, Limited, Denaby Main; Mitchell Main Colliery Company, Limited, Mitchell Main; Yorkshire and Derbyshire Coal and Iron Company, Limited, Carlton Main. These firms will also be asked to tender for yard purposes.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT AND BREWERS' DRAYMEN.
  MAJOR RASCH: On behalf of the honourable Baronet the Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, while brewers' draymen are delivering beer, beer barrels, or bottled beer six miles from the brewery, the employer would be liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or whether clause 7 would apply and limit liability to accidents occurring in or about the factory or brewery only?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: In my opinion clause 7 limits the liability to accidents occurring in or about the factory or brewery.

  BRITISH INTERESTS IN CHINA.
  MR. J. WALTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the suggestion of Lord Salisbury, in reply to the deputation of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, that the question of Parliament itself incurring pecuniary liability in upholding British commercial interests in China was a matter to be considered by the House of Commons, the Government will afford the House an opportunity of discussing the matter before the end of the Session, seeing that it is not relevant to the Report stage of the Foreign Office Vote?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have not been able to verify the reference of the honourable Member to the speech of the Prime Minister, but according to my recollection he has quite misinterpreted the purport, of that speech, What the Prime Minister, if I remember rightly, stated was this—that the incurring of pecuniary liabilities in favour of British commercial enterprises in a foreign State was am entirely new departure, and could not be done without the sanction of Parliament. In any case, that does not carry with it the suggestion on the part of the Prima Minister that time should be given in the course of the present Session to discuss it.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY VOTE.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any opportunity will be given this Session for the discussion of the Ordnance Survey Vote; and, if so, whether he will fix the date for such discussion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope to be able to put this Vote down next week.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Will the right honourable Gentleman fix Friday week for the Vote; it would be a convenience to the Irish Members?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not think I can at present state what Vote will be taken on Friday week. Perhaps the honourable Member had better put a question on the Paper.
  SIR F. EVANS: Then we may take it that the Vote will not come on to-morrow night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, it will not.

  BLAKELY GUN.
  MR. TRITTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the case of the widow of Captain Theophilus Alexander

  311
  Blakely, R.A., who was the first patentee of the "built-up" Blakely gun, who is now in somewhat straitened circumstances; whether he is aware that Mrs. Blakely sunk some £9,000 of her own money to assist her husband in his inventions; and whether, as a slight recognition of her husband's great services to this country in improving and developing its artillery, he will confer a pension upon her?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My attention has been called to the case of Captain Blakely, and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement contained in the second paragraph, though, in my opinion, I have no means of making independent investigation on that subject. As regards the last paragraph, I have to say that such inquiries as I have been able to make show that Captain Blakely was one of several inventors who about the same time independently hit on somewhat similar methods of improving artillery; but no guns made or strengthened on Captain Blakely's designs were ever introduced into the service, nor does any of his expenditure seem, to have been incurred at the instigation of, or in the interests of, the British Government. In these circumstances I should scarcely be justified in acceding to the request contained in the third paragraph of the Question.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to proceed this Session with the Attendance of Children at School (Scotland) Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: This Bill will not be taken in the course of the present Session. As we are approaching the end of the Session, and as I am going to ask the House to sit on Saturday—a very inconvenient course, I am aware, and only justified by the fact that it is the least inconvenient course open to us—I may perhaps indicate the Bills which will now be proceeded with. The Measures which—I think the House will agree with me—we can
  312
  pass, and ought to pass, are the Local Taxation (Scotland) Bill, the Teachers' Superannuation Bill, the Irish Outdoor Relief Bill, and a very small and, I believe, wholly uncontroversial Bill—the Kingstown Harbour Bill, which I believe will not be opposed. These Bills are still at the Second Reading stage. At the Committee stage, there is the Seed Supply Bill; at the Report stage the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund Bill, on which no discussion is anticipated; and at the Third Reading stage there is the Vaccination Bill, about which I shall say a word directly. We have to consider the Lords' Amendments to the Benefices Bill and the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and the Public Works Loan Bill; and there are two private Bills which I believe tire likely to raise no discussion, and which are in an advanced stage, and they, I think, with propriety might be starred and brought within the range of Government business—the Nonconformist Marriages Bill and the Trusts (Scotland) Bill. I understand that no opposition is likely to arise in connection with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and I entertain the hope to pass that Measure also. That completes the list of the Bills which I hope to pass, and I do not think that in any quarter of the House it will be regarded as an extravagant programme. The other Bills on the Order Paper I think we must abandon all hope of passing. As to the allocation of time to these Bills, I think it will render it possible—I do not say certain—to get away a day earlier than we otherwise could if Monday be given up to Supply. But Monday can only be given up to Supply if Saturday can be devoted to some other work which would otherwise have to be done on Monday. What I propose to do on Saturday is to take the Vaccination Bill and, I hope, the Second Reading of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Bill, which I think has been fully discussed at an earlier stage, and which ought not to take much time. I should be glad also, if possible, to take a Bill which must be passed in the course of the present Session—I mean the Irish Outdoor Relief Bill. If I could get that without lengthened discussion on Saturday, I should be glad;

  313
  but I recognise how inconvenient it is to have a prolonged sitting on Saturday, or to do anything which would make a long sitting obligatory upon us. Monday would be given to Supply; Tuesday in the main would be given to the West India Vote, and on Wednesday my hope would be to take the Lords' Amendments to the Benefices Bill and the Irish Local Government Bill, and the Nonconformist Marriages Bill on the same day. That is as far as I can go at present in sketching our prospects; but, if the House deals with the limited programme in a businesslike spirit, there is no reason why we should not get away a little before the end of the week after next.
  MR. CROMBIE: Can the right honourable Gentleman say whether the Local Taxation (Scotland) Bill will be in the hands of Members before Saturday?
  MR. TOMLINSON: May I ask whether there is any chance of the Government including the Parliamentary Deposits Bill in the programme?
  MR. WARNER: I quite recognise the concessions made by the Leader of the House, but I should like to say there will be a good deal of opposition to the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and the probability is that it will take a good deal of time.
  MR. BRYCE: What Supply will be taken on Monday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think it will be better to wait until to-morrow before answering that question. It depends on the progress made to-night and to-morrow. I may say, however, that my idea is to take the Law Charges, Class III., but I do not wish to regard that as a pledge, but merely as an indication of my intention. With regard to the question of the honourable Member for Lichfield, I may say that if opposition to the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill is of the kind indicated by the honourable Member, then it cannot be passed; but I entertain a hope that means will be found to reconcile all opponents to the Measure. With regard to the appeal of the honourable Member for Preston, I fear the Mea-
  314
  sure he refers to has not reached a sufficiently advanced stage to make it desirable for the Government to star it; but I am prepared to consider the matter, though I cannot hold out much, hope that I shall be able to meet his wishes. The House must remember that the privilege of starring should be sparingly applied, and only to those Bills which are far advanced. I think we could not conduct public business on the principle of starring great masses of private Members' Bills, however excellent they may be.
  MR. CALDWELLWhen will the Public Works Loan Bill be introduced and printed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that it is down for to-morrow. I believe also that the Local Taxation (Scotland) Bill, as to which the honourable Member for Kincardineshire asked, will be in the hands of Members before Saturday.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right honourable Gentleman has made no mention of the Colonial Loans Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No. If I thought that it was likely to get through without discussion I should be glad to bring it forward; but I fear there is no chance of that.

  PRIVILEGE.
  MR. J. DILLON: I desire to call attention to a serious error in the Journal of this House, an error which appears to involve a misstatement of fact. This record has reference to the Resolution of the House declaring that the proceedings of the Mullingar Board of Guardians, as reported in an Irish newspaper, constitute a breach of the privileges of the House. The record of the proceedings of the board of guardians in the extract given from the newspaper runs as follows—
  "Proposed by Mr. James Brennan, seconded by Mr. Denis Shanahan, 'that on this day fortnight the Board take action in regard to the vile and anticleric speech made by Mr. John P. Hayden last week in Parliament, with a

  315
  view to having his paper deprived of the advertisements here in future, and himself and his reporter excluded from our meetings.'"
  But there is nothing on the Record to show that any proceedings were taken by the board of guardians on that proposal, and, therefore, it appears to me that the Record does not faithfully reproduce and show the actual Motion made and on which the House was called to adjudicate. I wish, further, to say that, according to the information at my disposal, there was actually no resolution passed by the board of guardians, and no proceedings taken on the part of the board to justify this resolution. In pursuance of my first point, that the Record is not a correct record of what took place, I have here a Report of the Motion on which the House declared that this public body had been guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of the House. This Report shows that the honourable Member for Kilkenny City moved that the resolution passed by the Mullingar Board of Guardians on July 22nd was a breach of the privileges of the House, and according to the published record of the proceedings it was on that Motion that the House acted. But the Report in the Journal of the House does not record specifically that any resolution whatever was passed by the Mullingar Board of Guardians, and, on the Report as it stands and reads, great injustice has been done to this public body. It is there declared to have been guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of this House, whereas in the Journal of the House there is no statement that they have been guilty of any action whatever in this matter. I make no allusion to the action of the gentleman who gave notice of the Resolution; that is one thing, and the action of a public body is another. But that this House should place upon its Journal, and allow to remain there, a statement that a public body has been guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of the House, when the entry in the Journal records no action by the public body, appears to me to be not only injurious to that body, but to place the House in a most extraordinary and unenviable position. I pass for a moment to the more general question as to whether this board of guardians——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member can only argue that
  316
  the proceedings are not correctly entered in the Records of the House. He cannot go into the question he now proposes to go into—the question of the propriety of the action of the Mullingar Board of Guardians.
  MR. DILLON: I accept that point of order. But I was going to ask whether there are any means by which, in case I can produce evidence that no resolution whatever was passed by this board of guardians, I can move to expunge this Record from the Journal of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the honourable Member can produce such evidence that would be no ground for expunging the entry from the Records of the House. The Record of the House does not state that there was any resolution. It states that a newspaper was handed in at the Table of the House and the report read as follows—
  "Proposed by Mr. James Brennan, seconded by Mr. Denis Shanahan, 'that on this day fortnight the Board take action in regard to the vile and anticleric speech made by Mr. John P. Hayden last week in Parliament, with a view to having his paper deprived of the advertisements here in future, and himself and his reporter excluded from our meetings.'"
  The Record goes on to say—
  "Resolved, that the said proceedings of the Mullingar Board of Guardians, as reported in the Irish Daily Independent newspaper of 22nd July, 1898, constitute a breach of the privileges of this House."
  That is what the House has decided, and it seems to me to be accurately stated in the Records.
  MR. DILLON: My information being that all that was done was to give a notice of Motion, am I not correct in saying that this entry is incorrect when it describes the proceedings of the Mullingar Board of Guardians to be a gross violation of the privileges of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have read exactly what took place, and I think it is a correct record.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask the indulgence of the House to say that I am not particularly

  317
  concerned now as to whether or not the House wishes to rescind its Resolution. That is a matter for the House to decide; but I may be permitted to say that I did not wish to mislead the House. I based my Motion on what I found in the Irish Daily Independent, and it states——
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that any attack has been made upon the honourable Member.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I may answer what the honourable Member for South Mayo has said by stating that in the newspaper report it was mentioned that an Amendment had been proposed; that implies that a Motion was made.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have already decided that question.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: You will allow me to say that I have received a telegram from the honourable Member for South Roscommon stating that at a meeting of the board of guardians to-day the motion had been withdrawn. The action of the House has, therefore, had a wholesome and salutary effect. The board of guardians themselves recognise that they acted wrongly, and they have put the matter right by their action to-day.

  INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I desire to ask whether the Government will withdraw the Income Tax clauses of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill? I believe these are the only clauses that are opposed, and if they are withdrawn there will be no opposition.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand it is the intention of the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withdraw the clauses.

  NEW MEMBER.
  MR. G. W. PALMER,introduced by Mr. Causton and Mr. Woodall, took the oath and his seat for the Borough of Reading.

  SUPPLY—ADDITIONAL DAYS.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR moved that three additional days be allotted to the business of Supply.
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY [18TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHEE (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1898–9.
  Vote of £3,352,600, Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies.
  Agreed to.
  Vote of £1,972,000 for Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: On this Vote I wish to direct the attention of the House to what I consider a most important point in the training of the soldier—rifle shooting. The soldier is armed by the country with a magnificent weapon, and it is desirable on grounds of efficiency and economy that he should shoot well. The Lee-Metford is a splendid arm at any distance from a yard to 2,000 yards, but it requires great skill and confidence, and these are only gained by constant practice. The only advantages of marching power, endurance, and knowledge of drill are to place the soldier in a position to use his rifle with deadly effect in war if the opportunity occurs. For this he is fed and paid, clothed and trained; for this we have a War Department and costly autumn manœuvres; for this we have the whole machinery of recruiting; but it is not the big battalions but the straight-shooting battalions that will win the battles of the future. The greater number of our soldiers do not shoot well,

  319
  and in my belief it is because they have not sufficient practice. I do not find fault with the instructors nor with the troops, but only with the system. The Army has fired with a breech-loading rifle now for 30 years, and there must be a fault in the system that better results are not obtained. Reference to the Report on Musketry for 1897, published this year, shows that the number of marksmen in the Army has certainly increased and the number of really bad shots has decreased in the last few years. That reflects great credit on the late Commandant of the School of Musketry and other instructors. We have good shots in the Regulars, the Militia, and the Volunteers, but the bulk of those forces shoot badly. To take the 140 battalions of Infantry of the Line. In 1897, according to the last Report, the average of marksmen was 16 per cent. and of first-class shots 24 per cent., the remaining 60 per cent being in the second and third classes. That is to say nearly two-thirds of the Infantry are stated by the offcial Report to be second and third class shots, which means, at any rate, indifferent shots. Field firing and machine-gun practice appear to have been seldom carried out, chiefly because of the want of ranges. In the Militia commanding officers complain that they can devote so little time and attention to rifle shooting, and in the Volunteers, although a few such splendid shots go to Bisley that the authorities are at their wits' end to make the conditions sufficiently difficult, yet a reference to the official Report shows that the average of second-class and indifferent shots is about 80 per cent., and that two-thirds of the Volunteers shoot only 21 rounds a year, and not beyond 200 yards. Take the Reserve. What training do they receive? There are 50,000 infantry in the Reserve, and they are not even mentioned in the Report! They go to the Reserve probably poor shots, and are expected (without training) to return to the ranks good shots in case of war. That is impossible. It is quite possible to make good shots of the class from which recruits are drawn, but they should have more practice. The soldier fires only 119 rounds a year, besides possibly 81 more in field firing and other exercises at the discretion of his commanding officer.
  320
  His course of shooting is compressed into a few days, and all at one time, the rest of the year being given to other exercises, important enough, but in my opinion nothing like as important as shooting. I submit for the consideration of the military authorities that the soldier should shoot much more often, say for a few days once in each alternate month, and that the allowance of ammunition should be proportionately increased to allow of this. The annual course, instead of being a teaching course, should be a test time of what the soldier has learned during the year. It is said one of the chief difficulties is the want of ranges. This, for a great and wealthy country like England, is a paltry reason. It is unfair upon the Army that it should be expected to shoot well and not give it the means of doing so. There should be far more range accommodation, and especially at large camps like Aldershot, Salisbury, and the Curragh. Abroad it is much the same story. From South Africa the last Report available, for 1894, says—
  "Deficient range accommodation hampered the troops, who had no opportunity for private practice, and fired badly."
  For 1897 there is no report. There is the case of a country where our shooting in action has conspicuously failed in the past. Since the Crimean War Englishmen have only met white men in action on some very few occasions, and those have been in South Africa. Our disasters on those occasions have, in my opinion, been greatly caused by inferior shooting. Although we may well hope there will be no more troubles in South Africa, still precautions should not be neglected anywhere. There should be no want of space for ranges in that expansive country, so there, of all places, shooting should be practised far more than at present. And not only there but throughout the Empire. The regiment that furnished the assault on the heights of Dargai was one of the best shooting regiments in the whole Army of India. They had confidence in themselves, in their comrades, and in their weapons. If troops have not that confidence which habitual practice and usage give they will fire wildly in the heat and excitement of action. It is stated in the Report that certain regi-

  321
  merits in India which expended much larger amounts of ammunition than others, by shooting in their regimental rifle clubs, were far better shooting regiments than those which expended considerably less. This strongly supports my appeal for more ammunition for practice. It is unfair upon the men to mulct them of their pay to enable them to learn their duty, and it must act unequally, because many regiments will not do it. I have only spoken of the infantry, as that is the arm of which I know the facts, having watched the subject for many years, and having always taken a great interest in rifle shooting. I am dissatisfied with the small progress made, and attribute such progress as has been made to the great improvement in the rifle itself rather than to the practice with it. I consider that with more practice enormous advances might be made. I have felt it my duty to call attention to this subject, which is not only a military one but a great national one; and I earnestly trust the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War and the military authorities will give the question their most careful consideration.
  COLONEL BLUNDELLsuggested that the men, where long ranges were not available, should never be exempted from firing, but should fire with another rifle at the shorter ranges and be taught to take am at longer ranges.
  COLONEL WELBYwished to know if there was a sufficiently satisfactory reserve of bamboo handles to equip all the lance regiments; and whether all the lances in use had bamboo handles? Compared with the ash, bamboo handles made the lance a more serviceable weapon.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked if it were possible to train men fully at Gibraltar.
  MR. BRODRICK: When I spoke to the House last year with regard to Gibraltar I was able to state that there was range accommodation up to 800 yards and field firing at a longer range, and although I am aware that that is not the full extent
  322
  of the ranges in this country it is sufficient to permit of the training of the troops. With regard to the question of the lances, brought forward by the honourable and gallant Member for Taunton, I believe we are in perfect accord. There is a sufficient reserve of bamboo handles, and the test is very severe, because the bamboo is very severely bent, and unless it returns absolutely straight it is rejected. We are quite in agreement with the honourable and gallant Member that no motives of economy should prevent us having the best possible weapons, and the War Office are of opinion that it is possible to get the supply of bamboo handles required. A question has been raised by the honourable and gallant Member for Bath with reference to the musketry practice of the infantry. On that point my honourable and gallant Friend has understated the amount of practice which a soldier gets in his first year. Every soldier in his first year fires 400 rounds, and in every subsequent year 200 rounds of ball ammunition, and the general officer commanding has power to issue to any battalion under his command 4,000 additional rounds for field firing, and, further, the War Office makes a grant of over a quarter of a million rounds in order to encourage rifle shooting. It may be that this is not sufficient, and that, as my honourable and gallant Friend says, the soldier should fire more. But there is an immense amount of other training now besides rifle practice. The field training and the company training are very much greater than they were, and the whole of the soldier's year is largely filled up. I quite acknowledge that if we could put ranges where we liked and could mass our infantry in proportion to the amount of field firing to be obtained it would be a great advantage, but my honourable and gallant Friend is well aware—nobody better—that one of our greatest difficulties is the provision of ranges. We have attacked that difficulty most vigorously during the last two or three years. We are largely increasing our ranges, and I hope we shall be in a better position shortly. We have developed the range accommodation at Bisley and Ash, but it is only by the most careful administration

  323
  that the musketry training of the troops can be carried out. This is a point which the Commander-in-Chief, to my own knowledge, attaches the utmost importance. We fully see the importance of it, and a great deal is being done to improve the musketry training of the troops. Very good progress is being made, and I will only add that the Headquarters Staff fully realise its importance.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £245,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Salaries and the Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899."
  SIR C. DILKE: I do not propose to detain the Committee at any length. It would be cruelty to deal fully with some of the subjects connected with the Vote at the present stage of the Session and when the House has been wearied by late sittings, but only two days ago we had the Report of the Decentralisation Committee, and, naturally, some comment has to be made upon it. I admit perfectly that personally I have so strong an opinion on the subject of the decentralisation of the British Army, and the impossibility of any decentralisation under our existing system, that I come to the consideration of the Report as a somewhat prejudiced person. In that Report there seems to me to be very powerful confirmation of the views which some of us have ventured to put before the House. The Committee called before them the Military Attaché at Berlin to give information as to the system of decentralisation in the German Army; but we cannot argue from the German Army to our Army on the principle of decentralisation, or rather centralisation, for 20 different districts. We have nothing in the least resembling the German Army in this country except, in a measure, in the Irish command and the command at Aldershot. We have it also, of course, in India. The little changes recommended in the Report,
  324
  subject to the consent of the Treasury, are merely pottering suggestions, which only touch the fringe of an enormous subject which really cannot be dealt with at all until we have the revolutionary changes which some of us advocate. In some of the evidence given by distinguished men before the Committee there are most powerful admissions of the truth of many of the contentions which reformers have advocated in this House, and I do most strongly recommend Members of the House interested in these questions to read that evidence, especially the evidence given by General Buller. That evidence is deserving of the attention of honourable Members, and should be most carefully considered. The Government came before this House last year, and again in February and March of this year, with suggestions for changes, especially with suggestions for the increase of the Army, and those of us who hold very advanced views on this question and are dissatisfied with the existing system, prophesied a failure. The Government do not admit the completeness of their failure, but the speech of the Secretary of State for War himself went a long way towards confirming the truth of our prophecy; he said they were not doing so badly, but he admitted that while they were making some gain in recruiting towards an increase in the Army, yet next year, and the year after, there would be a considerable deduction, and that they would be happy if they could keep pace with that deduction. That is telling us virtually that any increase in the Army is to be an increase for the present year only, and that we must not look forward to be able to increase that gain. Let me point out that the increase in the Army in 1897 was not really an increase at all. The establishment was 3,000 greater on the 1st of January than on the previous 1st of January, but the actual increase in any number of men was only 100, and the number of men after that increase was smaller than the number in previous years. Let us go a little further. The number of effectives in 1895—the year the late Government came to an end—was 196,000, and the number of effectives on the 1st of January this year was 194,000, or a

  325
  falling off of 2,000 men, although there was an increase in the establishment of the Army, showing, it seems to me, the extent of your failure to recruit. I will not attempt now any comparison between the existing system—the broken-down system, as we think it—and the system some of us advocate. The only outward and visible sign of the strength of military reform in the councils of the Government is the peerage which has been given to Lord Haliburton, who was the great opponent of our views. Lord Haliburton has always attacked our views. He is a very able man; about that there is no contention, and those of us who object to his views feel his ability even more than those who approve of them. Lord Haliburton has attacked most unfairly the views of those of us who advocate revolutionary reforms. He charges us with attempting to destroy an experienced home army in order to set up a militia. Some people—not only clerks in the War Office, but distinguished soldiers—used that language with regard to the Prussian Army in 1866, and we know how completely that army triumphed, without the aptitude of the English people, for the military spirit exists in this country far more than in Germany. I only rose to show how little the arguments of those of us who prophesied the failure of the Government are affected by the Report of this Decentralisation Committee, and to express the opinion that, sooner or later, the Government will have to adopt our scheme.
  MAJOR RASCH: I only wish to call attention to two matters: one the speech of Lord Lansdowne with reference to the War Office, the other the question of recruiting. I have not the least hesitation in doing so, as I was not one of those honourable Gentlemen who covered the War Office with congratulations in March last when the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Guildford introduced his scheme. I said then that, in my opinion, the money asked for would be uselessly spent, and that the War Office had lost the confidence of the country. I think I was not far wrong in what I said then. The right honourable Gentleman did me the honour to say that if I had
  326
  my wish I would hang all the officials in the War Office. That is going too far. He himself is the very last official I would execute if I had my way. The right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean has just said that the only thing the Government appear to have done has beer, to promote Lord Haliburton for having held a brief for the War Office, and for the remarkably long-winded letters in which he opposed the views of the honourable Member for West Belfast. What did Lord Lansdowne say? He said they had not done very much; in other words, they had put some paint on the doors of the War Office and polished up the brass—the last thing, in my opinion, necessary. With reference to recruiting Lord Lansdowne said he did not see any deterioration in the class of recruits. When the head of the Department says that it is not difficult to read between the lines to see what he really means. He also congratulated himself on the fact that two-thirds of the specials had grown into soldiers of the regulation size. But what is the regulation size? As everybody knows, it has been cut down to five feet three and a-half inches in height and to 32 inches round the chest, because recruits were not available, and Lord Lansdowne says that two-thirds of the specials have grown into soldiers of that size, but if he is satisfied with that all I can say is that it is very easy to please him. With reference to artillery, in a letter published the other day by the honourable Member for West Belfast, he said—and, I believe, absolutely correctly—that, so far from the Government being able to increase the field batteries, they had not been able to get men to fill the batteries already in existence. On the condition of the Infantry of the Line I will submit a few figures. I find that the Essex Regiment, about which I know something, and which is on the higher establishment and one of the first for service, had at the beginning of this year a strength of 612 men, of whom, deducting those under 20 and a certain number for casualties, only 280 men were fit to go abroad. Of the 700 men in the Royal Scots Regiment only 325 were fit for duty, and of the 633 in the Kent Regiment only

  327
  266 were fit. If these battalions, supposed to be fit for service, and which are in the First Army Corps, have a strength of only a half which could be sent out of the country, I do not think the Secretary of State for War has much to congratulate himself upon. The worst of it is that in these discussions the speeches made by the officials are read by the public, whereas speeches made by other Members of the House of Commons are passed over with the remark that they are only made by colonels, who are always complaining, and who are the very incarnation of a grievance. What I venture to suggest to the War Office is that they should pay particular attention to recruiting. It is all very well to say, "We have to feed and clothe the men better and find them employment when they leave the colours," but the real thing to bring in recruits is to give them better pay. That is the Alpha and Omega of recruiting, and if you spend your money on bricks and mortar, on recreation rooms and canteens, you will not get your men. You must give more than the extra three-halfpence before you can get recruits. Of course, at this period of the Session it is impossible to go into the question fully, but I would venture further to suggest that if you would take the House of Commons and the country into your confidence and tell them what is now going on with reference to recruiting I do not believe you would have the smallest difficulty in getting all the money you want. I regret I have somewhat trespassed on the Committee, and I only hope that honourable Members will pardon me for having spoken so long in consideration of the importance of the matter under discussion.
  MAJOR WYNDHAM-QUIN: My object in moving the reduction I have given, notice of is to call attention to a matter which the people of South Wales claim is not only of local but of national importance. It is the inadequate defences at present existing for the coal ports in the Bristol Channel. I had intended to bring the matter in somewhat a lengthy form to the attention of my right honourable Friend, but I will be content, however,
  328
  to withdraw my Motion if my right honourable Friend gives me some assurance that the matter will be taken up seriously by his Department with a view to satisfying the people of South Wales and with a view to rendering the coal ports on the coast safe from attack.
  COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid, with reference to the Report of the Decentralisation Committee, that he was satisfied that if an officer commanding a district had the power of deciding small matters of finance it would save an immense quantity of correspondence and be of the greatest possible advantage, but he thought he would require the assistance of the chief paymaster to guide him in his decision. While he generally agreed with what had been done there were some cases in which he differed from the Committee. In the first place, he would take the purchase of land for the building of barracks. In his opinion, it would be far better to leave the building of barracks to the Inspector-General of Fortifications. He could use the engineer staff of the locality and could have the assistance of the general officer, as was done in the case of some of the depots many years ago. With reference to the length of time occupied in building the barracks at Winchester, which was referred to in the evidence before the Committee, that was not due to the system, but arose from the fact that those who had to decide did not make up their minds. He thought it would be better to leave to the adjutant general to appoint adjutants and post officers to depôts, and so maintain a common system; that could be done just as easily as under the system proposed in the Report. With reference to ammunition, in his opinion correspondence about it should go direct to the adjutant-general, as at present, or a copy of the letter to Woolwich would suffice. The proper service of ammunition had most far-reaching effects in war. He happened to be at Dongola during the last Egyptian campaign, and the opinion he formed then, from the accounts of officers and correspondents returning from the front, and which he now retained, was that if proper ammunition had been served out poor Stewart

  329
  would have won a thorough victory at Abu-klea, would have pushed rapidly on to the Nile and seized Metemmeh, and possibly the present campaign would not have been required. He assured the Committee that the ammunition supplied for the rifles was so bad that some of the men who had to use it cast down their rifles with an exclamation of disgust. On the return of the Camel Corps one rifle in three jammed, and would not go off. Then there was the question of giving power to a general officer to transfer men from one regiment or battery to another. In his opinion that power should not be given. They could be attached for duty until the proper transfer was completed. The "A" Division of police were sometimes sent down to a county where there was trouble, and sometimes the "B" Division were also sent. What would be said if the chief constable of the county transferred a man from the "A" to the "B" Division? Why, it would be an absurdity, as was the proposal made in the Report. It might be done by general authority if a man specially asked for it for a particular reason—to serve with an elder brother. He trusted that the reforms suggested in the Report, which would be a great improvement, would not be overdone.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: The supply of recruits seems to me to be the most serious question before us. I would remind honourable Members that though the reports with reference to recruiting are not certainly as favourable as we would wish, the scheme has not yet been fairly tried. The supply of men and the stamina of the men enlisted are better, and I am bound to say that I look forward with confidence to the War Office obtaining the entire number of men they want. The honourable and gallant Member suggested that a county might effect an improvement, but if I remember rightly the county system was tried during the Crimean War and cost a great deal of money, but did not get the necessary number of men. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Guildford stated during his speech, when he brought in his scheme, that one man out of every five between the ages of 18 to 24 would be required to serve the Queen in one capacity or another.
  330
  That is a high percentage, and it is a very serious question as to where those men are to come from. Much as we would dislike a departure from our voluntary system, I confess the whole system of recruiting seems to me to be tending in a direction which will oblige us to bring another system into force. Of course, the present standard for recruits is low, but still I am not a believer in very tall men or in enormous chest measurement. When men join it is extraordinary how they increase in chest measurement and strength as a result of the various exercises they are put through. The real matter is, where are the necessary men to come from in future if we are to maintain our present strength? Some day or other the War Office or the military authorities will have to face that question.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In the absence of the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary for War it seems to me absurd to attempt to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee on the reorganisation of the War Office, but the subject is one of such importance as to demand the earnest consideration of the House and of the country, and honourable Members should make themselves masters of the Report. "Alice in Wonderland" contains nothing more amusing than is to be found in that later literary composition. The Committee was one of those everlasting Committees which are appointed at intervals every year by the War Office, the object of which was to discover that the sun is shining at 12 o'clock. Every single fact elicited by that Committee was perfectly well known to every member of the Committee beforehand; they were known to a very large number of the Members of the House, and to an enormous number of the public. I am of opinion, except that it has produced a very amusing literary composition, that the time of the Committee was entirely wasted, because every single fact was absolutely known to the members of the Committee before it began its proceedings. But, Sir, there are features about the Report which demand the very serious consideration of the House. The Committee recommend that certain things should be done which in

  331
  any City company would have been done by a simple memorandum from the general manager or head of a department, and which might have been done by the head of the War Department exercising a little common sense, instead of wasting the time of the Committee upon such trivial matters. The Secretary of State has congratulated the right honourable Gentleman upon the part which he has taken in this inquiry, and I do not want to take away any of the credit due to him on that score. I do look, however, to the importance attached to a Report of that kind, and I think that I shall be able to show that, instead of occupying his time trying to make the British Army more efficient in the sense alluded to by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, he has been wasting his time over trivialities which would not have occupied a business house half an hour. The Report proves to the hilt the absolute truth of what has been said with regard to the organisation of the War Office year after year, in season and out of season, both inside and out-side of the House. Now, here is one of the most brilliant officers in the service of the War Office—Sir William Butler—who said that—
  "In my opinion, so long as this over-centralised work of reference and report goes on, so long will the general officers and their staffs fail to be able to perform what I take to be their primary duties."
  MR. BRODRICK: He signed the Report.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right honourable Gentleman says he signed the Report.
  MR. BRODRICK: He signed the Report which the honourable Member says is a trivial Report.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, I know that Sir William Butler signed the Report, although it was a triviality, and I can prove that it was trivial. Sir William was appointed, as a soldier, to sit on the Committee by the Secretary of State for War, but he did not frame the reference.
  MR. BRODRICK: I must altogether dissent from the view of the honour-
  332
  able Member that Sir William Butler sat on the Committee, as a soldier, to give his opinion on subjects submitted to him. He was called to give evidence, and, in addition to that, he examined every witness as he desired. But to say that he sat there, by order of the War Office, to do what the War Office wanted, was a perversion of terms.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is a misrepresentation of what I said. Sir William Butler's name was mentioned, but I never said that he gave evidence in accordance with the orders of the War Office. Obviously, it was Sir William's duty to inquire into the matter which the Committee was appointed to consider, and his signature to the Report does not in the least enhance the value, or increase the importance, of the Report. That is a matter upon which I am perfectly content to allow the Committee to judge. Sir William Butler confirms the statement that the War Office cannot do its work, and that their primary duties as officers were not performed because of the organisation of the War Office. Now, Sir, we have been sometimes called very hard names for saying very much the same thing as Sir William Butler with reference to the War Office. We have also said a good many other things; we have said from time to time that Parliament was not told the truth; that officers who were responsible for bringing the country safely through a war had reported that in their opinion a certain sum, say £1,000, was necessary for the safety of the country, and as the message had reached the House that need has been represented by hundreds of pounds. That was also proved by evidence before the Committee. We have been told that we have sometimes complained that the War Office have distrusted the officers of the Army, and that Reports which have been made to the War Office by men straining every effort to do their duty have never reached their destination. That is a strong thing to say, but there is no doubt about it if we read the evidence. Further, we alleged that the War Office hindered the real efficiency of the Army. All these things, I contend, are proved from the evidence and the Reports.
  MR. BRODRICK: Will the honourable Gentleman read the Report further?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, I will. Now that I have been challenged by the right honourable Gentleman, I am going to do my best to substantiate what I have said. Lieutenant-General Sir R. Grant was asked—
  "1419. Is there not this difficulty in Part II., services: that the general officer asks for much more than he expects to get?"
  And his answer was—
  "That is undoubtedly a great difficulty, but it is a natural difficulty, because he knows that his estimates are going to be cut down. We try to suppress them by making them send up two lists; one list to show what they do expect to get, and the second list, to show what they do not expect to get."
  Now, I think that is most important. The late Admiral Home was exceedingly strong upon that point, for he used to say, "Let the House of Commons know what we want, and then let the House of Commons refuse." Now, I said that the War Office could not trust a soldier, and that he had a clerk hanging on his heels for fear he should commit a felony. This is the evidence of Sir Ralph H. Knox. He was asked by the Chairman—
  "1366. That was settled after very considerable pressure from here?"
  and his reply was—
  "Yes; considerable pressure was put upon the Treasury to do that, and they gave us power to spend a small sum of money, notwithstanding that the money had been paid away absolutely in the teeth of the regulations."
  Major-General Burnett asked—
  "1367. Do you think that limiting it to £1 was treating his judgment on a very narrow scale?—I do not think so.
  "1368. You do not think the general officer is fit to be trusted with more than £1?—These are sums which we think should have been recovered."
  Now, that is not my question, but is put by General Burnett, who puts it that a general officer cannot be trusted with more than £1. Now, Sir, we have some-
  334
  times said that there are too many clerks employed in the War Office, and that many of them are employed in making work for the others. We have said that, in our opinion, the War Office clerks, to a large extent, are superfluous, and of no particular advantage to the British Army, Now, what does Sir Redvers Buller say? Now, he appears to have let himself go upon this question of the Army clerks. He says—
  "I should like to say very clearly that my opinion is, and I have verified it sufficiently, that the whole system of reports, regulations, and warrants, under which the British Army now serves, has grown up entirely for the benefit of War Office clerks, and to find work at the War Office, rather than to find proper control for the Army."
  Now, I do not think anybody else has said anything so strong as the statement that the system which has grown up at the War Office is entirely for the benefit of the clerks. He further states that the gentlemen at the War Office do their work extremely well, but the result of milking these regulations in such detail is that, unless they follow them out, they would have nothing to do. That is what we have been saying over and over again, for we have been saying all along that these officials have nothing to do but interfere with the efficiency of the administration of the Army. Sir Redvers Buller let himself go again. He says—
  "The existing financial relations are complicated. They keep them up and they cost about £3,000 a year. There are four gentlemen who are very clever and very distinguished, but they spend the whole of their time in what?—making us more able to fight our enemies? encouraging the filling up of our regiments, and supplying us with better arms? No; they spend the whole of their time making regulations. Every year we have new volumes of eloquence, which every wretched officer is supposed to enforce."
  I have said it is a pretty large order that the Reports did not get to their proper destination. What does the Report say? It says—
  "Sir William Butler, commanding the South-Eastern District, agreed that 'the mass of this return and report correspondence does not reach the official heads to whom it is addressed.'"

  335
  And he added—
  "Fortunately not, for if it did reach them, and had to be even casually perused, it must result in producing, at its final stages, a far greater delay and dislocation of business in the centre than its inception and preparation had already produced in the district circumference where it began."
  The right honourable Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office has seemed to suggest that this system of addressing documents to persons who never see them is a beneficial one; so I may be permitted to quote another passage from the evidence of Sir William Butler. In answer to a further question, he said—
  "I can adduce the positive example that, when some of our most laboured reports and returns were presented to the official heads of some sections to which they were addressed, they did not appear to be recognised or known."
  That is the evidence of Sir William Butler commanding the South-Eastern District, and I am bound to believe him when he tells me that he can produce the positive example that some of our most laboured reports and returns never get to their addresses. I have said something about the cost of these gross absurdities of War Office administration, but as I spoke nobody listened. In his further evidence Sir William Butler paid a high tribute to the organisation of the London and North Western Railway, and, contrasting their organisation with the organisation of the War Office, he said—
  "It is in this way that, in our Service, the great array of returns and Army forms has been produced, until, numbers being exhausted, letters and numerals can now only be differentiated by a combination of both, and the bill of the Service stationery has reached an amount equal to about the cost of a brigade of infantry."
  Some years ago I wrote an account of an orifice which exists at the War Office, and is labelled "Waste Paper Basket," and I said that it seemed to me a fit emblem of the Department. But I did not know that when I wrote that the cost of
  336
  the War Office waste stationery alone, in the opinion of one of the best officers of the Army, was equal to the cost of a brigade of infantry. Some of us have said that all this nonsense, all this complication, interfered with the efficiency of the Army, and we were laughed at. On this point I shall not give my own opinion, but the opinion of Sir William Butler, whose evidence I have already quoted. In answer to the question—
  "Would the Headquarters suffer at the cost of this outside development by not having its hand in these practices?"
  he said—
  "On the contrary; the Headquarters would be the great gainers under such a system. They would be free to consider and solve the thousand questions which the necessities of the Empire and the ever-recurring surprises of political events produce. Go into one of the offices in this House and observe the piled-up papers awaiting decision. Out of every score of these there will be, perhaps, one of real value—one which, if we were be appraise it in money, might be worth, say, five, ten, or fifty thousand pounds. The remaining nineteen might have values ranging from fourpence to fifty pounds, but they are all equally papers—they have to be docketed, registered, considered, written upon, noted, and passed with the same regularity."
  And then Sir William Butler speaks of the value of the system. He says—
  "The certificate and report system is in its nature misleading. On the occasion of a recent fire at the officers' quarters, Dover Castle, the reports and certificates dealing with the prevention of fire were of the most satisfactory nature. Everybody had done his duty. The place was burnt strictly according to regulations."
  I will give one more short quotation, and it bears upon the question of training. Sir William Butler said in his evidence—
  "I regard our young army as being insufficiently trained in the most essential part of its work."
  Honourable Members will see that I have not been drawing a fancy picture, or making statements which I cannot verify by the opinions of men who know the realities which affect the organisation of our Army. I know the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of

  337
  State for War will say this has all been inquired into; we have gut Reports. What more do you want I have stacks of War Office Reports for nearly every year since I began to take an interest in Army matters. There are always Reports, but absolutely nothing happens. Up to the present time a very large number of Reports have been presented to the Secretary of State for War, or to the Under Secretary of State. I wish the noble Lord and the right honourable Gentleman joy of them—and it is recommended that in the future the Reports should be made, not to these Gentlemen or to the War Office, as has hitherto been done, but to the general commanding the district. What is the nature of these Reports? In the first place there is a Report as to the extent to which war games are carried out, a Report on the disposal of a man surrendering as a deserter, a Report on the "deprivation of appointment of sergeant-cook," a Report to the Commander-in-Chief on "soldier-servants travelling abroad," a Report to the Adjutant-General on "boys physically unfit for the ranks"; another on books lost from the officers' libraries, a Report about weak and awkward men receiving an extended course of gymnastics, another on "infantry transport horses unserviceable from vice," one dealing with "books condemned as unserviceable." Then there is a Report on the "appointment of acting schoolmistress for infant school," which was referred to the War Office; a Report to the War Office on a funeral costing over £2; another on "trees on Crown Department land found to be decayed or insecure, so as to endanger War Office or other property"; another on "attendance of soldiers' children at civil schools"; and one which deals with the question of whether a mounted infantry officer is to receive cavalry pay. That is the kind of thing, and the list is very much longer, with which this kind of thing is taken up, and these gross absurdities are not to be discontinued, but in future the Reports are to be made to the general commanding the district. How much nearer shall we be to real decentralisation in that case? I say that the one thing we ought to remember is that
  338
  the gentlemen who have been discovering these things, who have been "letting themselves go" over these matters, are the officers who, almost without exception, have been parties to this folly, who have been performing these ludicrous tricks to the disadvantage of the Army and the country; and when the House is asked every Session to disregard the system of the War Office, and accept the ipse dixit of the Department on this matter, it should not be forgotten that the gentlemen Who ask for the confidence of the House in this way are the gentlemen who have misled you so far, and year after year some of them have held staff appointments for 20 years, and have acquiesced in the continuance of this system. Earlier in the Session the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War said, "Don't pull up the plant by its roots, and it will grow." I said I quite acquiesced in that sentiment. That was the promise, but the performance resembles what is known in India as "the mango trick"—producing a plant apparently without a root. In the case of the War Office I am dealing, not with the root, but with the finished plant, and I want to explain to the Committee that the plant has no root. We were told that we should have an addition, a large addition, an immediate addition, to our military forces. We were told that certain improvements would be made to make the condition of things easier. I applauded conscientiously many of the promises given to us by the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War, but I made one reservation, the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean made one reservation, and other honourable Members who know the Army better than I do made one reservation. We said, "These things are good and in the right direction, but there is one point where you fall short—you won't get the men," We have been told it is too soon to judge. I say it is not too soon, and I think I can justify myself for bringing forward the question now. We have been told that three extra battalions have been added to the Guards. I should have thought it would be wiser if the War Office had

  339
  lain low until they got them. They tell us they have got them, but I say they have not; they do not exist, and the battalions the War Office pretends to have got are not battalions in any just and fair sense of the word. We have been told that the Royal Warwickshire had a third battalion of 732 men sent to the Mediterranean. What does that battalion mean? It had a strength of 732 men, of whom 166 were taken from the first battalion, 278 men were called back from the Reserve, and 288 recruits. The Royal Fusiliers had 163 men transferred from the first battalion, 224 from the Reserve, and 239 recruits; the 19th Lancashire Fusiliers had 162 men transferred from the first battalion, 281 Reserves, and 186 recruits. If these recruits represented a gain to the Army there would be something to say for the system, but the 186 recruits for the 19th Lancashire Fusiliers in the period named were sent from every depôt in the kingdom. I know that for a fact, and I know that men were sent who were legitimately due to other battalions, which have thus been mulcted of their ordinary supply to furnish what are called the third battalions. Take, further, the case of the second battalion of this regiment. On 1st March it had 712 men in its second battalion; on 1st June it had only 529 men; 183 men had been taken away from that battalion, and its strength reduced to 529 men. The strength of the two battalions should be 1,444 men——
  MR. BRODRICK: The honourable Member does not state it correctly to the Committee; the strength supplied to the House is 800.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I appeal to the Committee whether I did not say, and whether I am not correct in saying, that the return was 1,444?
  MR. BRODRICK: The honourable Member did not say that.
  SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Yes, he did.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: These are the facts, and it is not only to that battalion but to others that my remarks are applicable. Take the Coldstream Guards. I
  340
  have not the latest details, but the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War said on 1st March, 1898, that the third battalion had reached a strength of 273 men. But these consisted of 142 recruits who had been practically arrested in their training, and 131 men transferred from the first and second battalions. The whole thing is humbug. With regard to the Royal Artillery I said some time ago, what was true, that the Royal Artillery field batteries had been arrested in their recruiting altogether, and I quoted figures given, to me by the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War. The field batteries in India had been instructed to leave behind on their return home all men who had two years still to serve. That may seem a technical detail, but men who have served with a battery in India, and, when the battery comes home, are told to remain and serve two years with a battery they know nothing about, and care nothing about, resent it. I attribute the falling-off in the Royal Artillery, among other things, to that feeling. What I want to point out is that the recruiting is at a standstill. The right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War said, I think, that 18,000 had been recruited for the first half of the year, and he added that that was a very exceptional figure. I have the figures here for the last 17 years, and I find that in 1885, 1886, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, and 1897 the number of recruits for the half year has been considerably over the figure given by the right honourable Gentleman. But at what cost have these 18,000 men been dragged into the Army? It has been done by reducing the standard of enlistment. I know everything that is said about the effect of gymnastics in broadening and lengthening these boys and making them soldiers, but that is not the material we want to hold up the British Empire. The right honourable Gentleman has also said that we are offering great attractions to men to join the Army, but I am not sure about that. Earlier in the Session the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War told us that the cavalry question was occupying his attention, and he said

  341
  a nucleus was to be formed. The right honourable Gentleman admitted that the cavalry organisation, as it was originally sketched out, had set up the back of every cavalry officer, and there was no doubt that it had made officers indignant. The right honourable Gentleman stated that a nucleus of 300 cavalry men should be allowed to continue to serve in the regiment to which by sympathy and sentiment they were attached. I want to know if that has been done. I have not yet seen the regulations which authorise it, and I do not know any cavalry regiment which contains at present 300 men as the nucleus of its organisation in the future. I believe that the organisation of the cavalry corps is as near a deliberate evasion of the Army Act as anything can possibly be. I believe that the use of the word "corps" has been resorted to simply and solely for the purpose of making this undesirable change possible. The words of the Army Act were clear that a man shall not be transferred from the corps in which he serves to another corps after a certain period without his consent. I put this question, before any jury of 12 plain men and I ask if the definition of a corps as stated in the Army Act can be interpreted to mean nine regiments in reserve? I maintain that the War Office is not strictly carrying out the letter of the intention of that Act. One word in conclusion. I want to see a little less of mere promise with regard to this question of regimental distinctions and regimental esprit de corps. I recognise that the Secretary of State is active in this matter. He has always professed himself, and no doubt is, most anxious to respect the esprit de corps of the regiment. I am glad to know that one or two of these grotesque tailoring changes which have been suggested lately have been stopped, and I hope that is an augur of future favours to come. But there is a good deal to be done. We want everything done we possibly can to stimulate the regimental feeling. There is a good deal of talk about the Highland regiments. The Highland regiments are admirable; but, Sir, they are associated with something else. These regiments are always capable of performing their task, and we hear about them—we
  342
  hear about nobody else—till I am almost tired of hearing the name of the Highland regiments. What is at the bottom of that? These men are not Highlanders. They have nothing to do with Scotland in many cases. But these regiments have won great prestige; their name is familiar; their uniform is in the public eye; and they carry public feeling with them wherever they are put in the field—not because they are Scotch, for they are half Irish or English. I know well the feeling that exists among many of these regiments, how one after another they have been deprived of the things they care most about, and things which have made these Highland regiments marked individualities before the British public. There was a question asked to-day; and what was the absurd and grotesque answer put in the mouth of the right honourable Gentleman? There was a regiment raised in Canada in the war of 1812 which fought at Niagara. It was disbanded in 1817, and was succeeded in 1857 by a regiment raised in Canada, the only British regiment raised in the Colonies. This regiment, the 100th Regiment, was raised in the crisis of the Indian Mutiny. Men and officers of that regiment were made honorary members of the Canadian mess. Nothing was too good for them. What happened? When the War Office had one of their fits in 1881 they telegraphed out to India to the 100th Royal Canadians and asked them to give up that title. They said "No." They telegraphed back in half an hour. Well, the War Office amalgamated them with the 109th Bombay Regiment, which had a name and fame of its own, and they called this the Prince of Wales's Leinster Regiment Royal Canadians. What did the War Office do? They sent out the second battalion 109th Bombay Regiment to Halifax, and they sent the 100th Regiment Royal Canadians down to Birr, in Leinster, which they have as much to do with as I have with Mesopotamia, and then they thought they had satisfied them. I asked the right honourable Gentleman whether he would allow the Royal Canadian regiment to be repartiated in Canada and given back the title. What does he say? Oh! he says, we must wait and see whether they will get

  343
  recruits to the regiment. I will give the House the views of the Canadian Senate. I have read their Debates. They say—
  "We will support this regiment, we will do all that we can for this regiment, but on one condition. Young men will not go into a regiment which bears the badge of 'Leinster,' a totally meaningless title, on their shoulder-straps. We want to give our own name to the regiment."
  What does the right honourable Gentleman say? Was there ever such a case of putting the cart before the horse as to say, "We will not change the title until you get the recruits"? Surely the Dominion Senate are within their rights when they say—
  "We will not encourage recruiting until you give us what we ask."
  I give that as an example. Then we have so many regimental nicknames that, in case we mobilise for war, there will be something like, I believe, one hundred battalions appearing in some form or guise under the name "York." The Commissary will go mad, will need to be put in a lunatic asylum, if ever he tries to distinguish these regiments. The other day I was in Yorkshire. There is a very splendid Yorkshire regiment, the 20th Regiment. A report was absolutely sent back from Afghanistan censuring the Yorkshire Regiment for their conduct in the field. What was the fact? Almost on that very day the brigadier was congratulating the Yorkshire Regiment as having performed their duty in a way more exemplary than that of any other regiment in the field. What is the explanation? The officer who made the report did not mean the Yorkshire Regiment at all; he meant the Yorkshire Light Infantry. I sympathise with him. I would like to put the right honourable Gentleman through his paces in an examination of the Yorkshire regiments mobilised for war, and I say that, able as he is, he would absolutely break down if put to that test. I believe at this moment the Yorkshire Regiment is suffering under this error because of the confusion between the Yorkshire Regiment and the Yorkshire Light Infantry. It is not the only mistake made by a long way. These mistakes have occurred over and over again; and I say it is not common sense, that there is no military organisation in the world, no army, no business organisation which could be
  344
  properly carried out in the way that the War Office chooses in this matter. Give the regiments their numbers; give them, titles, if you like—a whole string of titles. The satisfaction of the right honourable Gentleman is a small matter; but, for the convenience of everybody, give them some sort of distinction. The impression that I want to try and leave on the mind of the Committee is a perfectly definite one: in the first place, that we have a Report made by the War Office, and that Report is in itself a condemnation of the men who make it and the processes they have been working; in the second place, that that Report deals with the fringe of the question only, and does not in any single respect give the essentials; and in the third place, I want to call attention to the fact that the proposals of the War Office have not succeeded, and that the Secretary of State for War was justified, and amply justified, when he said the other day that after this year we should have two or three years during which the efflux will be abnormally large, and it is hard to say whether we shall be able to keep pace with it—that is to say, instead of having our new batteries and battalions, and being strengthened for all the tremendous responsibilities we are going to incur, we are going to stand where we were in numbers, or, rather, we shall be weakened in personnel by the acceptance of children for those battalions, and that the War Office is still asking us to accept on its authority the dictum that they are right and we are wrong when we say, as we have always said, that you will never solve these problems until you realise that you cannot do what no nation has ever been able to do—constitute an army for all the difficulties and dangers and trials of the British Empire, and an army for the common defence of the United Kingdom, on precisely the same lines—and that until you realise that fact, and organise an army on a basis conformable with that fact, you will not get the efficiency you now desire.
  MR. BRODRICK: I think anybody who listened to the long speech of my honourable Friend will admit the ability he brought to bear upon the questions with which he dealt:

  345
  but it seemed to me that the honourable Gentleman approached the subject from the point of view of a critic who was determined to see the worst of everything that had been done by anybody who had anything to do with the administration of the Army. I wish to say at once, by way of apology to the Committee, that, considering the late period of the Session and the late hour at which we have arrived, it would be impossible for me to go into details, as I should desire, in reply to the speech which already has occupied more than an hour of the time of the House; but I would say this, that when a Government has introduced great changes, that when we have asked the House for a large increase in the number of men, and have changed the scale of pay, the terms of enlistment, and have also changed in very many respects the conditions of the regiments and also the administration of the Army at headquarters, we have a right to ask for some time for the consideration of these changes before they are again dragged before the public for dissection. I say again, in reply to the honourable Gentleman, who said he was not going to pull up the roots of everything to see how it was growing—I affirm that he has gone as far as he possibly could in dragging out all his old accusations and a good many new ones, and a good many criticisms of a system which has not even had three months' working, before the House, in order that he may prove how absolutely useless are those who administer the War Office. I will only point to one single fact in all the allegations that he has made. He comes before us, and he denounces at great length the condition of the three battalions which have been added to the Warwickshire Regiment, the Royal Fusiliers, and the Lancashire Fusiliers. The three battalions were not formed until the 1st of April. We are now at the 28th of July. I say that instead of complaining that the battalion in each case is not in an absolutely efficient and full state, he ought to be surprised at the fact that they have already reached between 600 and 700 men. The honourable Gentleman complained that the Adjutant-General has taken a certain number of men from other battalions at home in order to assist in forming the
  346
  new battalions. I ask the Committee to consider what would have been the scorn the honourable Gentleman would have heaped upon me if we had attempted to form the new battalions entirely of new recruits, under circumstances under which it could not possibly become efficient for five years. One of these battalions has already gone abroad, and one is on the point of going abroad. I admit that these battalions would not have been sent abroad but for the fact that we have eight battalions up the Nile and 20 battalions abroad altogether in excess of the normal number. If you have got 1,200 or 1,300 men in a regiment where up to the time the House voted the money you had only 700 or 800 men, and even perhaps less, I think that we have not done badly in the progress we have made with these battalions in the last few months.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: They are not new. You had them all before.
  MR. BRODRICK: I beg pardon, we had not them all before. It is true we have taken men to increase these battalions from the time the House passed the first Vote in the course of the month of March. I only give that as an indication of the spirit of the honourable Gentleman's speech. Instead of congratulating himself and the country on the progress made, he makes an accusation against the Adjutant-General and the Commander-in-Chief that they have taken time by the forelock, and they have begun to form the battalions as soon as the House voted the money. I call attention to this because I do think this extraordinary spirit in dealing with public matters shows to disadvantage a critic like my honourable Friend, who has so much knowledge and experience. For Heaven's sake, let us be attacked for that which we do wrong. We are endeavouring to carry out the wishes of this House, the wishes of the public, by every means in our power; then do not turn round and say, "Oh! but you can only show a handful of men." I put that to the Committee because I think what we desire to know is really what the attacks mean. My honourable Friend said, and the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of

  347
  Dean insinuated, that there had been no progress in regard to the increase in the Army voted by this House in the month of March. That is not the fact. The increase in the last year, between the 1st July, 1897, and the 1st July, 1898——
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There were three battalions voted last year.
  MR. BRODRICK: Quite so. I was going to tell the House what has been the increase in the Army during the year, and my honourable Friend gets up immediately and says we voted men last year. As a matter of fact, since the 1st July, 1897, and up to the 1st July, 1898, the number of men serving with the colours has increased by 6,292. We have made an alteration, in deference largely to the pressure exerted by my honourable and gallant Friends in this House, and a great number of other persons, by which a certain number of men have been allowed to rejoin the Service. I think that measure has commended itself to a large majority of those sitting behind me. That accounts for 3,000 men. But by fair recruiting we have added 2,600 men in the last year, and 600 men have been added to the Colonial forces, making altogether an increase of nearly 6,300 men in one year. As we have increased the Army we have also increased the Army Reserve. The strength of the First Class Reserve in July, 1897, was 81,410. It was on the 1st July, 1898, 80,708, so that while we have taken 3,000 men from the Reserve, we have only reduced it by 700 men. Therefore, considering the condition of the regiments, the increase voted in each regiment by the House, and the larger number of battalions, I do not think that anybody can complain because we have taken a certain number of seasoned men as a foundation for new battalions formed. My honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Essex (Major Rasch) thought that particular attention should be given to the question of recruiting. I do not think it will be possible—I am bound to speak out for those who are engaged in the work of recruiting—for any body of men to have worked harder. The Inspector General of Recruiting, since he was appointed a
  348
  year ago, has spared neither time nor toil nor any expedient in order to put pressure upon the different recruiting centres, and I have not the least doubt that if anything has been done too much it is to impress into the ranks sometimes, perhaps, too many "specials," who will develop into soldiers, but who at the present time, for the first few months of their service, do not possess the necessary physical strength. Well, Sir respecting this increase, I will tell the House what has been done in regard to artillery. We have gained 619 men in field artillery and 835 men in garrison artillery. I do not say that that is all we could desire. We are watching the question carefully. We have never professed that recruiting is an exact science, and I do not think there was much point in the criticism that the War Office was one source from which the deficiencies of recruiting ought to be made up. This House is, after all, the arbiter in the matter. We are endeavouring to the best of our ability to carry its desires out. It is said, "Why do we not ask for more pay?" I say that many people doubt whether three-quarters of the men who join the Army join in consequence of the pay at all; and we might very well come to the House and ask for an expenditure of two or three millions of money and not get the recruits that this House desires to have. We are bound to pause to consider everything very carefully. We are bound more than all to try every expedient that we know—to try every change in the terms of service to add to the attractions to the private soldier, and to endeavour to get him employed to the best of our ability after he leaves the colours—before we ask the House to bear this enormous expense. It may interest the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean to know that every week since the three years system was introduced we have enlisted for the line about 100 men on the three years system, and these men have been so far in excess of the number enlisted for seven years last year.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: What is the proportion?
  MR. BRODRICK: About one in seven. One small point before I deal with the

  349
  larger question brought up by my honourable Friend the Member for South Glamorgan, the question of coast defence. That question is in itself an important question, and it is occupying the very serious attention of the Secretary of State. In the case of Bristol plans are being drawn up, and I hope we shall soon be in a position to discuss them. They have by no means escaped attention, and I can undertake that the case of Bristol, as of the other commercial ports, will not be left out or be postponed a moment longer than can be helped. Very large demands are now being made upon our attention for national defence. There is a temptation held out to me of lengthily refuting what has fallen from my honourable Friend the Member for West Belfast on the subject of decentralisation. I am going to resist it for this reason. In the first place my honourable Friend gave himself away at the end when he said that nothing would be done by War Office Committees. I confess I think he showed very little generosity in that respect. When I heard him reading out with the utmost contempt and scorn a number of small changes which it is proposed to make, which found no place in the Report, but which are modestly tucked away in the pages containing something like 300 or 400 references to regulations, returns of stock, and the like, I doubted if he had at all appreciated the spirit in which the Committee worked. In the schedule we dealt with enormous labour with the individual questions which had to be decided. My honourable Friend spoke of Sir Redvers Buller, and he quoted that portion of Sir Redvers Buller's evidence which happened to give him satisfaction. I wish he had gone on a little longer and quoted a passage which I will give to the House. My honourable Friend quoted from Sir Redvers Buller's evidence all which appeared to him to boar on the evidence of the War Office clerks. He stated that all these returns and regulations were kept up for their benefit, but left off at a sentence which I will give—
  "With regard to many of the Returns sent in to the Adjutant-General I should say they have grown out of questions in Parliament, and if ever we have a Secretary of State strong enough to refuse a Return asked for by a
  350
  Member of Parliament, on the ground that it is not worth the trouble of preparing, then, and not till then, shall we have the number of the Returns reduced."
  Sir Redvers Buller's complaint is every bit as strong of the House of Commons as it is of the War Office clerks, upon whom my honourable Friend laid the whole of the sarcasm. I am not going further with these Reports. I think, after one has spent three or four months' labour on one of these Commissions, one may naturally speak somewhat warmly of the extraordinarily lukewarm reception from the honourable Gentleman, who is never tired of speaking about these mistakes, and has very little to say in favour of those who endeavour to remedy them. I complain that he should have gone out of his way to select Sir William Butler, whose evidence he read. He said Sir William Butler was in a position in which he could not avoid signing a Report which was full of trivialities, and did not attempt to give his fair opinion.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I protest that is not a fair statement of what I said. I made no such suggestion. It is an absurd statement—a statement not necessary to my argument, and which was not present to my mind.
  MR. BRODRICK: His words were that Sir William Butler was in a position in which he should not avoid signing the Report.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I mentioned Sir William Butler's name; the right honourable Gentleman said Sir William Butler signed the Report; I said of course he did—he was a member of the Committee. What I said was that the subject matter of the Report was trivial, and that Sir William Butler signed it.
  MR. BRODRICK: He says the Report is full of trivialities, but he missed every important point. He then proceeded to quote the evidence of a member of the Committee who had himself given evidence, which shows how utterly bad the system is, which, as he says, we have done nothing whatever to redress. I only wish to remove that impression before the Committee. I think a very great stride has been made in the

  351
  direction my honourable Friend desires, in giving general officers full control, or as large control as possible. On this Committee we had no difference whatever. The civilians were in a minority, and there was nothing which any soldier desired to put in that Report which is not there. There were three general officers, two of them commanding districts at the time, both of them men of undoubted character; you have a third who has had large experience all over the world. There is not one single point in which the civilians disagreed; there is not one single point proposed by any military member of the Committee which is not in the Report. The Report is crammed full of criticisms, which are not so much against the War Office; but I am not going further into the matter at this moment. My honourable Friend said he would like more performances and less promises. I think the increase of the Army by five or six thousand men in India in a year shows that the War Office authorities are not merely marking time. I also ask the Committee to consider what human power could enable us, under the voluntary system, to perform all we desire in the space of two months. I can only say this: that if, as I do not believe, the main system that was proposed by the Government this year, and approved by the House of Commons, should fail to achieve its desirable object, we, at all events, shall not sit still. We are not desirous—the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant General are not desirous—of falling short of the Supply Parliament voted them. I sincerely trust that there is no Member of this House who will believe that it is merely the critics of the War Office who have a monopoly of patriotism or desire for the improvement of the Army. I can only say that night and day since we took office, in season and out of season, we have not failed to press forward every reform which has been suggested to us and everything which has been put before us by the military heads of the Army, and I can assure the House of Commons that, although the time is now too short to give a complete and satisfactory account of all the changes which we desire to see set in motion, I trust that before we discuss the Estimates again we shall be able to show even better progress, and it will not be
  352
  due to any want of desire or want of patriotism if that is not so.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Sir, the matter to which I desire mainly to draw the attention of the Committee is one which is closely bound up with the general policy of the Army, and therefore I feel justified in reviewing that policy. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that some time ago, when we were on the point of being obliged to send some two army corps to South Africa, when, moreover, we were not in a position to take any troops from either Egypt or India, that Service Members of this House, some 50 or 60 in number, felt it their duty to bring before the House and the country the fact that our Army was inadequate to our Empire and, I might add, to the needs of our constantly growing Empire. Well, Sir, at that time it was stated that we knew little of these matters. Now, I ask the House to say whether it is not fair to admit that a number of men who have spent the best years of their lives in connection with the Army are better qualified to give an opinion on this question than gentlemen, who have spent their lives in connection with agriculture, law, commerce, or some other pursuit. Well, Sir, at that time we stated that, irrespective of the infantry branch of the Service, the artillery was distinctly deficient. I myself have repeatedly brought before the House the state of the Army Medical Department. I have no hesitation in saying that at the present moment, even while drawing upon the Reserves, even while drawing upon the officers of the Army Medical Department, who are upon half-pay, you would not possibly get, without completely denuding the garrisons at home, a sufficient number of Army medical officers to man two army corps, and to have a sufficient supply for the lines of communication and for the hospitals at the base. Well now, Sir, references have been made to the War Office. It is not my intention to attack the system of the War Office. What I desire to say—the complaint I make against the Government—is this: that they have not done what they ought to have done. They had a unique opportunity to place before this House and the country the state in

  353
  which the Army is, the state in which they knew it at that time to be. I know it will be said that the country would not have been prepared for what the War Office might have been prepared to advocate. Well, Sir, I am of an altogether different opinion. I venture to think, Sir, that the whole difficulty lies in this: that we have not got an adequate supply of men for the Army. We are throwing the fault upon the War Office, on either the civil or military element, and we are losing sight of the fact that the fault is not at all either with the War Office or with those who direct the military portion of our Army; the fault is with the House of Commons in not bringing to the knowledge of the country the position in which we stand. They are attempting to make bricks without straw. It is certain that we have not got an adequate supply of men. The honourable Gentleman referred to conscription. I know it will be said that the whole issue depends—as the late Commander-in-Chief used to say—on this: that either the people of this country must be prepared for conscription, or they must be prepared to pay extravagantly. Now, Sir, representing as I do a working class constituency, and being, not a little Englander, but an Imperialist, I venture to state that the people of this country are prepared, if they are shown that it is necessary, if they are shown that they cannot get an adequate supply of suitable men for their Army—they are prepared, if needs be, to do a certain amount of soldiering, in connection with either the Volunteers or the Militia, in order that we may have a sufficient supply for our Indian Empire and for our foreign needs I say that the opportunity for placing the state of affairs before the country arrived, and that the Government did not take advantage of it. I know there are those who say the breakdown of our Army is due to the fact that we have not got in force now the old system, the system of long service. Why, Sir, we rejected the long service system because the long service system broke down; we were unable to obtain men for that length of time. Furthermore, it was conclusively proved by the campaigns of 1864 1866, and 1870 that it was the Power which was able to bring into the field highly-trained Reserves with rapidity that
  354
  invariably won the day. Consequently, we were obliged to abandon the long service system, and to adopt the present system, in order that we might have a Reserve. That Reserve, it is true, has been to some extent produced; therefore I say that the fault does not lie either with the old service system or with the new service system. The real secret is this, that you must popularise the Army with the people of this country. Why is the Army not popular as a profession—as a trade, if you will? Why, for this simple reason, that it had a bad name, and that bad name still exists. It is as true with reference to the Army as it is true with reference to an employer of labour. If you get an employer who has a bad name, he may become the best of employers of labour, but it takes years and years before he can establish his reputation as such, before he will get a good supply of the best men. It is said we must compete with the labour market. Now, Sir, we desire to draw our recruits mainly from among agricultural labourers. In any case we desire to draw them from unskilled labour. It is true we may draw a certain number from skilled labour, but they invariably rise to the position of non-commissioned officers, and consequently I will confine myself to the case of the others. I say we are competing very fairly with the labour market. The average rate of wages for unskilled labour varies from 12s. in the country, where the cost of living and rent are small, to 24s. here in London, where the cost of living, and more especially of house rent, is at the maximum; therefore, the average rate of wages throughout this country will be about 18s. Therefore, I will ask my Friends the Labour Members, the honourable Members for working class constituencies, whether a man can house himself as well, feed himself as well, clothe himself as well, upon the wages which he would receive in civil life as he can in the Army, paying, moreover, a certain amount to a good friendly society, and having, over and above that, several shillings per week to spend as pocket money. We know it is not possible, and therefore it is not purely a question of competition in the labour market; and, moreover, Sir Thomas Crauford, the late Director General of the Army Medical Department,

  355
  computed the cost to the State of a soldier at about a pound per week.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I do not think the honourable and gallant Member is entitled to go into the whole question of soldiers' pay or recruiting. He is entitled to criticise the policy of the War Office in carrying out the scheme laid before Parliament at the beginning of the Session, but I do not think the whole question is open for discussion now.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Very well, then, Mr. Lowther, I will only point out that the Secretary of State for War, in the speech that he recently made, declared that "during the next two or three years the efflux would be abnormally large." Now, Sir, my view is that, in two or three years, unless some change has been made, there will be a complete breakdown of the present system, owing to the fact that we shall not be able to obtain an adequate supply of men. Of course, I shall be told that the people and the country are not going to back up the Government and Parliament. I am of a totally different opinion. I think that the working classes of this country, owing to superior education and a cheap Press, were never more thoroughly convinced than they are to-day of the value of the "open door," which, I may add, has been unceremoniously slammed in our face lately. They know very well that the commercial existence of this nation depends on securing markets for our trade, and they see other Powers making use of their defensive powers for that purpose, and they feel that England should adopt the same course. A point I wish particularly to direct the attention of the Under Secretary of State for War to is this: granted that the opportunity is passed, and that we are obliged for a few years to cling to the present system, that we are obliged to patch up the present military boot—the present military foot having outgrown the military boot—if we are obliged to patch it up, let me direct his attention to this fact, that if there is one thing more than another that will enable us to get a high class of recruits it is by paying some attention to the soldier's future. I observed with satisfaction that the Secretary of State for War stated that there were some two
  356
  thousand posts open to the soldier after he has served in the Army. Well, in my opinion, there ought to be at least five times that number. He also went on to say that "some of the great railway companies—I wish I could say all," were prepared to take a certain number of ex-soldiers into their service. Now, Sir, we had in Committee of this House——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think the honourable and gallant Member is dealing with the general question—not with the policy of the War Office. The general question was discussed at the early period of the Session.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I am endeavouring to show that the Government are at the present moment endeavouring to make the present military machine run rather in want of recruits. My contention is that they are not obtaining them in sufficient numbers; they are obliged to fall back upon the plan of obtaining "specials," or young men who are not physically up to the standard. They take these young men, and not infrequently a large proportion, when they are put to men's work, when they come to marching with packs on, break down, and subsequently these men go about the country and injure recruiting. I was pointing out that if the Secretary of State for War desires us to make the railway companies more patriotic he has nothing to do but name the companies against which he has complaint, and we will very quickly, by stopping all their Bills, increase their patriotism. But I maintain that that is not the case, that the railway companies are prepared, and have frequently stated that they are prepared, to take as many old soldiers as they can find places for, but that these men cannot get through the first year of severe railway work in the goods shed. They were wastrels when they started. You take the wastrels and ne'er-do-wells of society, and keep them in the Army for a few years, and then turn them out, and naturally they are unable to compete in the labour market. The question I desire to deal with is this: that by showing greater consideration for the sick and dying soldier you will go one step towards popularising the Army. Out of the 32,000, on an average, that you enlist

  357
  every year you are obliged to invalid about one-eighth. The position we occupy, as compared with other armies, if this: that having a large proportion of our Army abroad, we have a death-rate of something like 12 per 1,000 of those abroad, as compared with eight per 1,000 of those at home. As the right honourable Gentleman knows, they are liable to more climatic disorders of a lasting nature, and I say one of the best methods of helping yourselves to recruits is by establishing some system whereby the soldier, when recovering from exhausting diseases due to his residence in foreign climates, instead of being drafted, as he is now drafted, from the hospital to the barrack room—to remain only a short time in the barrack room and then be brought back again to the hospital—should be sent to a convalescent home. In that way you will vastly benefit recruiting, because then you will not have thousands of men roaming about the country showing the young men that their health has broken down in the service of the country. It will be said that the Chelsea Commissioners deal with these cases; but, Sir, of the 3,300 men you are obliged to invalid from the Service Chelsea can only deal with about 1,000. I would point out that there is a vast amount of valuable material lost to the country by the system now in operation. We have a constantly non-effective rate of sickness out of our 220,000 men of 13,000, at a cost to the country of some £600,000. Now, Sir, if you were to establish a system of convalescent homes it would lead to a reduction of the established rate of accommodation in hospitals of between seven and ten per cent., and out of those 3,300 men you send out to act as non-recruiting sergeants you could save at least—this is the calculation of an expert medical man—330, or, practically, half a battalion. Now, Sir, it may be said that I would advocate the building, at an immense expense, of large convalescent homes throughout the country. I advocate nothing of the kind. I do advocate that there should be, so far as invalided soldiers are concerned—so far as those who come to Netley, where the most acute disorders are dealt with—one large relief hospital. I find there an some 310 convalescent homes throughout the country, and all these are kept up
  358
  it a cost of something like £300,000 per annum. They are extremely well managed; the cost per patient varies from about £1 and a decimal to £10 and a decimal; therefore, at a very low cost the Government could save a very large amount in their hospital expenses, and save half a battalion of men to the Service every year. It may be said that soldiers, as a rule, are men in youth and the prime of life, and that they do not suffer from the severe illnesses which we find in civilian life. Sir, that is not the case with men who come to Netley, for I find, on examining the seven heads of severe diseases, the time they remain in Netley is something like 48 days. Therefore, I say it is a wanton and senseless form of extravagance to keep these men in hospital, where they cost, as the right honourable Gentleman stated, on an average—at Netley they cost much more—some 17s. per week, when you can have those men taken into convalescent homes for something like 12s. 6d. a week, thereby saving to the country and the taxpayer a sum of 5s. per man per week, and giving the man a much better chance of recovering. Now, Sir, I want to put this before the right honourable Gentleman: I wish to point out that the soldier, owing to the fact that he is a soldier, is placed in a very much worse position than his brother in civil life. A man in civil life, if he goes into any of our hospitals, and if he is suffering from an exhausting disease, is transferred to a convalescent home, but that is not the case with the soldier. I take the case of Middlesex Hospital, which corresponds most nearly to Netley. Middlesex Hospital has 300 beds, and an average of 3,000 patients a year, but they pass 1,000 of these to their convalescent home at Clacton at the rate of 20 per week. The cost at the Middlesex Hospital is about £1 17s. per head, whereas the cost at their convalescent home is about 17s., or £1 less, and therefore they do this to economise. But take a case that corresponds with a military hospital. Charing Cross Hospital has 175 beds, and 2,000 patients a year. It passes into its convalescent, home 150 persons a year, at a cost to patients of 7s. 6d., and to outsiders of 12s. 6d. a week. I am given to understand that this very hospital would be prepared to take a certain number of these soldiers

  359
  at 12s. 6d. a week, thereby saving the Government something like 5s. a week. The right honourable Gentleman, in an answer he gave to me in this House, stated that there were convalescent homes here and also abroad, but he had to acknowledge that there was but one convalescent home in this country, and this convalescent home was capable of accommodating only 68 patients in the course of a year. Why should a great and wealthy country like this be behindhand as compared with Continental countries? We find Italy, a much poorer country, with a standing army of something like 280,000 men, providing no fewer than five convalescent homes for her sick, and passing through 1,800 patients every year, while we should require for our Army of about 220,000 convalescent homes for 1,400. Supposing the right honourable Gentleman were to arrange for five per cent. of the existing convalescent homes, to take five soldiers each—that is to say, 75 beds—per year; he could accommodate something like 1,500, and he could do so at a saving of £400 to the Estimates. He would, moreover, diminish the number of 3,242 discharged soldiers who are to be found in our workhouses. Then the right honourable Gentleman, in answer to a question of mine, denied that soldiers were ever sent to workhouse infirmaries. He must, however, know that not infrequently, when a ship is to arrive at Netley with a certain number of invalided soldiers, the authorities keep at Netley those cases which would not be received at any hospital or workhouse infirmary, while those who have no friends are sent to workhouse infirmaries to die. I say that it is monstrous that in a voluntary Army—an Army of which we are justly proud—men who have served this country should be placed in a worse position than those who are serving compulsorily in France, and get three or six months' furlough, and who, in cases where they have no friends, Tire sent to maritime establishments. We find even Austria has made better provision for her soldiers than we have made in this country, while Germany has also a certain number of establishments to which soldiers can be sent. Speaking generally, the soldiers in foreign countries are altogether on a different basis from those in this country. The soldier
  360
  abroad serves for a short time. He serves compulsorily, but he scarcely ever quits his native land; whereas the British soldier is a voluntary soldier, and he has in frequent cases to renounce both his home and his country for years together. Therefore, any comparison between the Continental soldier and the British soldier is invidious. If you want a proper supply of suitable recruits for your country you must endeavour to raise the social status of the soldier, and to increase his self-respect. I say this is a great and national responsibility, which should touch the heart and the conscience of the nation, and, moreover, that both, humanity and expediency are here combined. That a man who has served his country in foreign parts, and thereby ruined his health in protecting our honour, our Empire, and our trade, should be condemned to die in the wards of a workhouse is a disgrace to a great and wealthy country. There ought to be no excuse for anything of the kind. It may be said, What does it matter where a man dies? Well, Sir, it matters very materially. It may be only a question of sentiment, but after all, sentiment is one of the most powerful motives in the world. It is sentiment which causes the British people to cling to the voluntary system; and they are quite right, for there never has been a nation which can claim that its army has done what our Army has done.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must ask the honourable Member to confine his remarks directly to the Vote.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I will confine my remarks directly to the Vote by saying, in conclusion, that it is manifestly the duty of the Government, seeing that they are determined to adhere to the present system—a system of which I do not approve, and a system which those of us who have studied the matter believe to be breaking down—I say that if they wish to patch up that system a little time longer they should leave no stone unturned to popularise the Army, and one of the first things they ought to do is to care for the men of whom I have spoken—namely, the sick and dying soldier.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That does not arise on the Vote at all.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to call attention to the great expense entailed on the officers of certain regiments in regard to mess arrangements. The Government propose only to give those unfortunate officers the sum of £150 towards providing the mess, which is, after all, an extremely expensive thing in the first instance, and on that account a most heavy tax on the officers, and I hope my right honourable Friend will reconsider the matter. If he cannot give a larger sum of money to those messes, I would suggest that he should allow officers to borrow money and pay it back by instalments through the Treasury, at a cheap rate of interest, because, as I understand the position, these officers have either to borrow the money or else they have to obtain the necessary articles of furniture on the hire system, which is extremely undesirable. I hope my right honourable Friend will be able to give the officers some assistance in this direction.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: With reference to what my honourable Friend has said, I may inform him that the subject which he has brought before the Committee is one which is now under the consideration of the Government. They feel that the burden placed on the officers is an extremely heavy one, and they are considering how far a remedy can be applied. With regard to the more general discussion of the Vote, I quite admit, Mr. Lowther, that it is of very great importance, but I would respectfully venture to suggest to the Committee that it would be a very great advantage if we could shorten the discussion on this Vote, inasmuch as there are other questions of great importance with which we have to deal. I hope honourable Gentlemen interested in Army matters will not assume that on that account I am oblivious, or the Government are oblivious, of the many important topics they wish to bring before us, for, after all, we have to arrange these matters as well as we can to the advantage of the different interests concerned. I would, therefore, venture to make an appeal to both sides of the
  362
  House to shorten the discussion, so as to enable the Committee to proceed to the consideration of other, and not less important, matters. I do not wish to curtail this discussion except in the interest of the other Votes to be taken.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I quite acknowledge the necessity, as the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House has pointed out, of curtailing the discussion on this particular Vote, and I will, therefore, only detain the Committee for one or two minutes. In the first place, I desire some information as to the percentage of recruits who pass into the cavalry. I also desire to say one word with regard to the general question of the War Office. We must not be premature in coming to a conclusion as to the success or non-success of a policy which has only been adopted within the last few months. But once or twice in the right honourable Gentleman's speech he drew attention—and I think it is rather an important point—to the fact that the War Office had been working night and day, straining every nerve, to produce those results. When ever you have that condition of things in any office it does not mean that your organisation is satisfactory. The other point I desire to put to the Financial Secretary of War is as to the desirability of further information with regard to the gun factories. Is it a fact that the gun factory was without a head for six months——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This matter does not arise on the Vote under discussion.
  SIR J. COLOMB: But the policy of the War Office is concerned——
  THE CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into the question on this Vote.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I respectfully submit that it would be in order as a matter of War Office policy. I would, therefore, like to say one word on the broader question with regard to officers. I should like to know whether, as a matter of policy, the War Office have represented to Her Majesty's Government that a great strain has been put upon the Army system by

  363
  naval demands—I mean the absorption of the flower of our troops at the coaling stations all over the world. To my mind, such demands must break down any Army system, and I trust that more will be heard of this next Session. It has been perfectly plain to the House that the Navy should do its own work, whatever it be. As an illustration of this, I would allude to the War Office policy, and ask a question. The War Office has sent officers out to Wei-hai-Wei, for military purposes, of course, and considering that the whole military arrangements of that port depend on its maritime condition, I want to know what they can do with regard to the military defences of that place. Now, I do not at all raise the question of the acquirements of that port, but I do ask, in the absence of hydrographical surveys, as to the naval defences, what are military officers to do?
  MR. JEFFREYS: Sir, I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman as to the accommodation provided for soldiers at Aldershot and elsewhere. I believe no one has ever done more for the soldier than the late Mr. Secretary Stanhope—no one has ever done more for the welfare of soldiers than he did. May I go on to another matter, with reference to manœuvres on Salisbury Plain? The Government have, very wisely, I think, bought 40,000 acres of land on that plain for manœuvring purposes, and I believe it will produce good results. But at the present time cavalry regiments have been ordered not to go there on account of the scarcity of water. The right honourably Gentleman cannot deny that cavalry regiments were ordered to go to manœuvres on last Tuesday, but they are still at Aldershot, and I do think that a large sum of money having been spent on the land, a little extra money might be spent in order to have a better water supply. With regard to the soldiers, I believe that the Army is now more popular than ever.
  MR. DILLON: I never heard of such a proposition as that put forward by the First Lord of the Treasury, who said that this claim was at pre-
  364
  sent under the consideration of the War Office. In the whole course of my experience of this House I never heard of a more audacious proposal. The idea of putting before this House, as a proper use of the cesspayers' money, that it should be contributed towards the expenses of officers' messes is monstrous. Am I to be told that because the private soldier gets a shilling a day to support himself the British officer is to get a contribution towards his mess? The thing is preposterous. It is all very well to say that the contribution is only for supplying knives and forks; it is an absurdity. I maintain that if the officers require more expensive plate they ought to pay for it out of their own resources, and when the Estimates are brought on next year I shall examine them very closely, to see if any provision is made for this.
  MR. WARNER: I think that some slight contribution from the War Office is necessary in order to put officers of new regiments on the same footing as officers of old regiments. There was one question raised which was not made clear, and that was the question of the sergeants' mess. The sergeants do want their plate provided; it is much more important that they should be provided than the officers, because they cannot afford to pay for it themselves. We can get plenty of officers, but we are in great difficulties about non-commissioned officers. I should like to hear the right honourable Gentleman's statement with regard to the sergeants' mess, and I hope that he will nut them on an equal footing with battalions already existing. I hope that the War Office will take into consideration the fact that the Marines should be treated by the Army officers with more consideration than they have been. It has been a grievance with the Marines. There is another slight that has been paid to another branch of the Service. During these coming manœuvres Volunteer officers have been invited to attend, and provision has been made for them, but no provision has been made for Militia officers. I think the same facilities ought to be extended to Militia officers as to Volunteer officers.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I do not propose to keep the

  365
  House long, but one word I wish to say upon a remark concerning the Army which fell from the lips of the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War. He mentioned, during his speech, that it was not altogether a question of pay with regard to getting the number of men in the Army that he wished to complete the strength. In that I thoroughly agree with him. Of course, we all know that the first object of an army is to be ready for war. It cannot be ready for war unless you have the full complement of men, and it is the impression among many people interested in the Army that it is the pay alone which attracts men to enlist. I do not deny that pay has a certain influence in enlisting for the Army, but there are other questions which affect it very much. There are certain paints in the soldier's code very dear by tradition and association, connected with the glorious deeds done by their regiments, and I think the War Office should be extremely careful how they break down those points to which the men attach importance with reference to their regiments. One thing I would instance, the regimental numbers, to which great affection is attached; and another point I would also lay stress upon, and commend to the consideration of the right honourable Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, is as to whether it would not be advisable to try a system of allowing men to enlist for the regiment which they wish to join, rather than compel them to join a branch of the Service in which distinctions have been to a large extent obliterated. I believe at the present moment, for the first time in the history of the British Army, there is a difficulty in attracting recruits to cavalry regiments. I am told there is hardly a cavalry regiment in the United Kingdom at this moment which is not from 150 to 200 men below its strength.
  MR. BRODRICK: NO.
  COLONEL SANDYS: Well, I am misinformed. That is the information supplied to me, that cavalry regiments are largely below their strength, and cavalry has always been fully recruited in the past. I am inclined to think the system which has prevented, or is now prevent-
  366
  ing for the first time, men enlisting for the cavalry regiments they wish to serve in, is the main cause of the deficiency in the strength of that arm. It is an arm which takes long preparation, and it cannot be extemporised by votes of money. It takes a long time to train cavalry and make it efficient. My point, which I wish to impress upon the Committee and upon the Under Secretary for War, is that they shall attach some importance to this esprit de corps, and that men shall be allowed to enlist in any particular regiment.
  COLONEL WELBY: I need hardly say I agree with the honourable Members who said that they wished this Departmental Committee's Report dealt to a greater extent with the organisation of the Army. The honourable Member for West Belfast condemned that Report in the most wholesale manner, but I believe if that Report is carried out—as I hope and trust the Under Secretary for War intends that its recommendations shall be carried out—a great step in advance will be taken, and much benefit will, result from it. I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will not rest there, but will take into consideration the organisation of the Army.
  MR. BRODRICK: My honourable Friend who spoke the last but one is really entirely in error in supposing that there are between 150 and 200 men short in several cavalry regiments. As a matter of fact, there is a deficiency of only 71 men. The condition of the cavalry is not such as is supposed by those who have not access to the figures. In regard to the new scheme, undoubtedly that will be carried out. The men will have the power of indicating the particular regiments they select. Enlistment will be for the corps with a pass into a regiment, subject to an emergency which may make it necessary to pass into another regiment.
  COLONEL WELBY: Will the right honourable Gentleman say when orders will be issued?
  MR. BRODRICK: The regulations are in print. The regulation as to the minimum for each cavalry regiment is to

  367
  be given to the Adjutant-General, and will be carried out strictly. My honourable Friend below the Gangway asked what are the proportions by which the increase in numbers has been distributed over the Service. The increase in the Royal Artillery is 1,350; in the Foot Guards, 861; and 3,293 in the Infantry of the Line. I think he also asked for information with regard to Wei-hai-Wei. The position at present is that certain officers are there on behalf of the War Office. The War Office and the Admiralty are acting absolutely together, and no steps will be taken that are not approved of by the Government as a whole, and no delay will be incurred in taking any steps that are necessary.
  COLONEL WELBY: I should like to know what these military officers are to do pending the completion of the hydro-graphical survey.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have already told my honourable and gallant Friend that it is not desirable to go closely into details at this stage.
  DR. CLARK: There is one point respecting which I must express my regret at the action of the Secretary of State for War. I am sorry to have to do it, because in other respects he has been very successful, much more so than any of his predecessors; but I very much regret one decision that he has taken, because it will have a very bad effect in South Africa. He has given pensions and retiring allowances to two gentlemen who ought cot to have got them, and I am very glad to see that the Auditor and Comptroller General has expressed in a Minute his strong disapproval of the conduct of the Secretary of State for War. He used a strong phrase, that it was a "strained interpretation" of his powers, and the Committee on Public Accounts have even gone further, and said it was unnatural. So we have one public official and one public body censuring the conduct of the Secretary of State for War. I will go further, and say the grants were totally unnecessary. So far as Colonel Rhodes is concerned, he is a rich man, and for us to give him £300 a year is throwing away money. I make a distinction in
  368
  the two cases of Major White and Captain White; they are separate altogether from Rhodes and Willoughby. They are not so much to blame, because they were under Major Willoughby's command. The man to blame is Sir John Willoughby. Major Willoughby is more of a financier than a soldier, and he has been so for the last dozen years. He has made a big pile, and the £1,133 that the Secretary of State has given as a gratuity to Major Willoughby will be simply money thrown away. If these men had been poor or deserving in any sense I could have understood the Secretary of State for War being tempted to give an unnatural construction to the power he enjoys, but when you have got two rich men who nave made piles by their South African work as financiers, and do not require money, I do not see why on earth the Secretary of State for War should have strained, and have given an unnatural interpretation to, his powers in order to give these men these pensions and gratuities, when, upon the simple wording of the law, they are not entitled to them. I very much regret the action that has been taken, because it will be supposed in South Africa, when these remarks by the Auditor and Comptroller General and the Public Accounts Committee come to be known there, that those in authority in this country are, after all, behind Major Willoughby and the others connected with the Raid. I very much regret that this has been done, but I do not intend to mark my sense of it by taking any further action.
  MR. PIRIE: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to what I must consider a serious blot on the practicability of the manœuvres which are at present coming on. The point is that this year the system of messing as carried out on active service—namely, messing by company or by squadron—is not to be carried out. The system of regimental messing by officers is to be insisted upon. These manœuvres will cost some £140,000, and it is only natural that the taxpayers of this country should expect that they should be in every respect as like active service as it is possible to make them. Now, when you have a system of regimental mess-

  369
  ing carried out on so-called active service, you have something absolutely foreign to active service. There is not only this drawback, but great individual expense is entailed on the officers; you have the roads blocked in many instances with lot of private transport, and altogether it is absolutely foreign to the conditions of active service. I quite admit, Sir, that on the first occasion in which manœuvres of such size have taken place, there have been many difficulties to contend with, but I trust that on the next occasion manœuvres are taking place on the same scale attention will be given to this point. To a certain extent this also applies to the men. Really, it is very essential that the commissariat should be practised in every possible way, both the purchasing of stores and the supply to the men of rations.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the commissariat did not arise on this Vote.
  MR. PIRIE: I will not dwell further on the point. One other point I should like to bring under the notice of the Committee is the inequality of the quartering of troops in the British Islands. Scotland in this matter is, as has already been brought under the attention of the House of Commons this Session on more than one occasion, most unequally treated. We have only three regiments quartered in Scotland. We have one district command, compared to 11 in England and five in Ireland, and the money which is spent on military requirements in Scotland is in proportion to a thousand to tens of thousands in Ireland and hundreds of thousands in England. I am not here to ask for any very great increase of the garrison. We do not wish that; but we do wish a certain more fair proportion than we have at present. I should be satisfied with an increase of one or two infantry regiments in garrison in Scotland. Towns like Stirling and Aberdeen are quite capable of accommodating a regiment, and as we supply 10 or 11 Scotch territorial regiments to the British Army, a number out of all proportion to the size of the country, the least we can ask for is that a fair proportion of the men should be apportioned to Scotland. I only hope that the Secretary of State for War will take that into consideration in
  370
  the future, especially as the Army is to be increased by 25,000 men.
  MR. WOODALL: I have no disposition to prolong the discussion upon this Vote, but I hope I may be permitted to call attention to the extreme importance of the ruling which you, Sir, have made from the Chair, and repeated in the course of the discussion; that in which you have given a decision that nothing can be discussed under this Vote which would more properly be raised upon any specific Vote. I take it that hitherto the general practice in Committees on the War Office Estimates has been freely to raise any question upon the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State for which he was officially responsible. I can recall to the mind of honourable Gentlemen whom I see opposite an occasion when a change of Government was brought about, though it was pointed out at the time by the Chairman of Committees, your predecessor, Sir, that the discussion ought more properly to have been raised on Vote 9. I do not challenge your decision, Sir. I think for the convenience of the business of the House there may be a good deal to be said in favour of it, but it is a very important decision upon which I think probably some of us may desire to retain a certain independence of judgment.
  MR. PIRIE: Perhaps I may be permitted to ask now, with regard to the commissariat on the occasion of manœuvres——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is at all a new decision. It has been laid down over and over again that the proper place to discuss a subject is where that special subject is referred to in the Vote. I have laid it down several times. It applies to the War Office Votes just as much as to the Naval Votes, and what has just fallen from the right honourable Gentleman I think supports that view, when he said that my predecessor himself said that the Debate to which he referred ought to have been taken on the specific Vote. It seems to me to be the proper course.
  MR. WARNER: May I ask the Secretary of State to give some statement as to the sergeants' messes?
  MR. BRODRICK: Sergeants' messes were included in my previous reply.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think I understood the right honourable Gentleman to say that the 6,000 men were not an addition to the Army, because 4,000 of the men were already in the Army. As I understood, the addition to the Army is not 6,000 men, but about 2,400 men.
  MR. BRODRICK: Six thousand is the net difference between the numbers on the 1st July, 1897, and the 1st July, 1898.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It includes Reservists already in the Army receiving pay.
  MR. BRODRICK: There is 6,200 increase with the colours, of whom 3,000 are Reservists, and that involves a loss, not of 3,000 Reservists, but about 700.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: My honourable Friend behind me [Dr. Clark] has received no reply from the Under Secretary for War on the question he raised. I think we ought to have some sort of explanation on the subject. The Public Accounts Committee considered, and they are supported by the Comptroller and Auditor General, that these officers should not have been granted this money by the Secretary of State. Well, with that before us we ought to have at least some sort of explanation of the matter. It is obvious, without going into the merits or demerits of the question whether these gentlemen ought to have the money, that it was improper for the Secretary of State to have granted this money if he had no power, and the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General say that he had no power to make these grants. I do not quite understand one point. Five or six of these officers, I think, were at first deprived of their commissions. Then we gave these retiring allowances, a certain sum to which it was considered these officers were entitled. But of these three have been replaced in the Army. Two are left outside, Major Willoughby and Colonel Rhodes. They all received the money. Do I understand that the
  372
  three who were replaced paid back the money into the Treasury?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, it was made a condition that if they were replaced they must repay the money.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: They did? That was what I wished to know. Well, then, there are only two other officers. I do not wish to deal hardly with those subordinates, but after what has been brought out by the Public Accounts Committee's Report and by the Comptroller and Auditor General I think we ought to have some information on these other matters.
  MR. BRODRICK: With regard to these two other officers, it is perfectly clear that the position of the Secretary of State is this. It constantly happens that officers are called upon to retire from the Service. They may be cashiered, they may be dismissed, or for some reason or other they may be called upon to retire. In all these cases the Secretary of State has power to make allowances at his discretion. When an officer resigns his commission, and sends in his papers, he is given what it is considered he is entitled to. That is what the Secretary of State did in this instance. The Public Accounts Committee challenge it, and I have no doubt that, when the next raid takes place—if ever similar operations should again take place—the Secretary of State will consider very carefully before deciding on retiring pay to such officers.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think that the right honourable Gentleman has given quite a full account of it. What took place, as far as my recollection serves, is this. These five gentlemen were compulsorily retired, and the question then arose under which section of the Army Warrant they were to be retired. The Secretary of State, in the exercise of his discretion, said that they would be retired compulsorily under Article 101, I think it is. That Article provides for cases of gentlemen being compulsorily retired from the Army for causes other than misconduct. Well, in the first place, the Comptroller and Auditor General called attention to this interpretation of Article 101 of the Army

  373
  Warrant being a strained interpretation. That is to say, he complained of the Secretary of State allowing these gentlemen, one of whom has been convicted of treason-felony, I think—Colonel Rhodes—in the Transvaal, and the other has been brought up here and charged under the Foreign Enlistment Act, and convicted and sentenced to some term of imprisonment in this country. He called the attention of the public authorities to the fact that the Secretary of State, in allowing them to be retired under Article 101, was putting a strained interpretation upon the expressions in the Army Warrant. The Secretary of State replied, I understand, that he was by the terms of the Warrant made the absolute interpreter of it. But there was a second complaint. The Comptroller and Auditor General also complained against the Secretary of State retiring these officers under Article 101, and the right honourable Gentleman replied, so far as I could hear what he said, that the Secretary of State had no discretion, even under the section under which he retired them, in giving them their full gratuities or lesser gratuities. That is not quite the case. He could have given them, even supposing he was justified in retiring them under this section, either reduced gratuities or no gratuity at all. Those are the two points to which the Comptroller and Auditor General called attention in his Report of last year. Those are the two points which I think were introduced in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, and with regard to which I think there cannot be much doubt that the Secretary of State, at any rate, did put what was described, I think, as a "non-natural" interpretation on the Warrant.
  MR. HANBURY: That was not so. The Public Accounts Committee expressed no opinion on the matter.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Well, the Report of the Public Accounts Committee is there, and can be referred to. At any rate, I will say this: I am perfectly certain that the Comptroller and Auditor General did say that this was a strained interpretation of the Warrant, and I think he used the word "non-natural." I put it to the Committee whether he was
  374
  not justified in calling attention to this subject, and in the use of the language used upon this subject, and I think we ought to have some fuller information from the Under Secretary of State for War.
  DR. CLARK: So far as this question is concerned, the Comptroller and Auditor General objected to the action of the Secretary of State, and stated that this was a strained interpretation of the Warrant. There have been three cases of this kind—in 1886, in 1889, and in 1892. On each occasion—in consequence of the preamble the Secretary of State held—well, I have brought the statement by Mr. Stanhope, when Secretary of State, before the Committee, and I will read the words—
  "The Secretary of State has no more claim, nor greater freedom, to disobey rules, or to put an unnatural interpretation upon them, or to make alterations so as to increase expenditure, than the head of any other Department."
  That is strange phraseology. The Committee's attention is drawn to this matter by the Comptroller and Auditor General. He says it is a strained interpretation of the powers of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State claims to be the sole interpreter of the Warrant. I will read the terms of the preamble of the Warrant—
  "Our will and pleasure is that as hereinafter laid down, this, our Warrant, shall be established and obeyed as sole authority on matters here treated on, and that our principal Secretary of State, to whom we shall think fit to entrust the affairs of our department, shall be the sole administrator and interpreter of this our Warrant, and shall be empowered to issue such instructions in reference thereto as he may from time to time deem necessary."
  He shall be the sole interpreter of the Warrant. Then the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Treasury, and the Public Accounts Committee say that, while he is sole interpreter, he must not interpret the language in such a fashion as to go contrary to the express provisions laid down in other Warrants. I understood Mr. Stanhope then agreed that in any question of this kind he should not act upon his own responsibility, but should act with the Treasury. Well, I suppose in this case the Secretary of State has fallen away from the position

  375
  of Mr. Stanhope, and has himself claimed to determine this question, and not be bound down by the discretion given in Article 101. I think, as I have said, there are certain occasions when he might on the ground of charity do something for men who are compelled to leave the Army, but, so far as these two men are concerned, I say there was no need. So far as Colonel Rhodes is concerned he is a very rich man, and so far as Major Willoughby is concerned he has ceased practically to be an officer and has been a financier, so that both men have plenty of money, and this grant is totally undeserved.
  MR. BRODRICK: The point is simply this. The Secretary of State is undoubtedly his own interpreter of the Warrant. He interpreted the Warrant favourably to these officers. Whatever their means may be, I do not think the interpreter ought to be guided by the poverty or wealth of the officers, but by the justice of the case. The justice of the case was held to involve the payment to them of the money they had earned by their services. It has been pointed out by the Public Accounts Committee and by the Comptroller and Auditor General that that was a strained interpretation, and regard will undoubtedly be had to that in considering any subsequent proceedings.
  The Vote was agreed to.
  "£1,567,800, Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, etc."
  "£1,335,600, Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, and others."
  "£177,300, Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allowances, and Gratuities."

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  "£1,330,323, to complete the sum for Inland Revenue."
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,402,250, be granted to Her 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, 1899, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office
  376
  Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
  MR. LUCAS-SHADWELL: I rise this evening to draw attention to a matter in connection with the payment, or rather the non-payment, for overtime to postmen, and I should not have done so had I not exhausted all other means at my disposal for drawing the attention of the Post Office to the grievance of which I complain. I have to draw attention this evening to the recommendation of Lord Tweedmouth's inter-Departmental Committee with regard to the payment of overtime for over eight hours' duty. I should like, with the permission of the Committee, to say a few words. The Committee, in their Report, say—
  "We think there should be throughout the service a uniform payment for overtime, viz., a rate of a quarter, provided that no payment for overtime shall exceed 2s. 6d. per hour in week days and 3s. per hour on Sundays. Whenever the attendance exceeds the normal duty by more than 30 minutes within 24 hours it should be counted as overtime, and in the case of two or more attendances in any one day be reckoned cumulatively, provided that at each attendance the overtime worked is not less than 15 minutes."
  Now, the point I wish to raise this evening depends on the meaning of the first few lines of this recommendation. I wish to point out that a Post Office Circular of March, 1897, says that in future overtime in London and the provinces shall be paid for at a uniform rate of wage and a quarter, providing it does not exceed 2s. 6d. per hour on week days and 3s. per hour on Sundays; and in the cage of two or more attendances in any one day, overtime shall be reckoned cumulatively, provided that at each attendance the overtime worked is not less than 15 minutes. I think it will not be contested that the recommendation of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee and the Post Office Circular are practically identical, and even if it were not so I hardly think that the right honourable Gentleman who represents the Post Office in this House will raise a quibble on words. It is quite evident attendance does not refer to indoor work merely; it applies to any work or duty, whether in the post office or in the open air; it is the usual term applied to

  377
  attendance at drill, which takes place in the open air. I will go on to show how thoroughly this Report was accepted by the right honourable Gentleman himself in a speech which he delivered in July last year. This was, of course, a recommendation by the Tweedmouth Committee to the Treasury, and the right honourable Gentleman in regard to it said—
  "The Treasury has accepted the recommendations of the Committee. We have not in any way cut them down—the recommendations have been adopted wholesale, and have had the approval of the Treasury."
  I submit that the English language could not be plainer. There is to be a uniform payment for overtime throughout the service; surely it means that every man ill the service of the Post Office shall receive payment for overtime. I can hardly think the right honourable Gentleman will attempt to read into this paragraph any other meaning. It is rather remarkable, and I think worthy of note, that in the borough, which I have the honour to represent in Parliament payment for overtime was made to the postmen for a time, and then stopped. When I made representations in the proper quarter I was informed it was owing to a mistake of the local postmaster. But it seems to me that the postmaster read the Queen's English more accurately than the Postmaster General, or, at any rate, the permanent officials who advise him in London. It is curious, too, that this so-called mistake did not occur simply at Hastings. I have a letter here from a postman in the North of England in which he points out—
  "We are working 9, 10, or 10½ hours; our overtime has been sent up to the head office twice since Easter; it is not yet paid for, and now we get an answer that the matter is pending revision."
  This shows there is some doubt whether it should be paid for or not. The writer goes on to complain of the very heavy deliveries and the vast number of circulars he is called upon to deliver, although he is paid nothing for overtime. We are told by the Post Office that if payment were made for overtime there would be dawdling on the part of the men, as there is no control over them while
  378
  on their deliveries, but I think I can prove that during the time overtime was paid in Hastings less overtime was made than is now the case when there is no payment for overtime. But, even if that were not the cause, surely a great Department like the Post Office, with all its resources, could do something to check dawdling. I believe it is the usual practice when new houses are erected to a postman's beat for a sub-inspector to go round with the man and see what time it is necessary to allow for the distribution. Could not something of this sort be done if dawdling were suspected? Is there any real difficulty for the Post Office to deal with this matter in a fair spirit—can there be any real difficulty in checking dawdling on the part of postmen? I am not raising this question as an ordinary grievance. I am not raising it in the interests of any particular body of men; I am raising it as a point regarding the wording of the Tweedmouth Report, and I cannot conceive that any person who reads that Report can have any other opinion than that this recommendation was intended to apply to every man in the Post Office service, whether on the inside or outdoor staff. I feel very strongly on this matter, or I would not have taken the course I have done this evening. I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that I shall not rest until this grievance is redressed. I am quite certain that sooner or later principles of common justice and the public feeling of this country will demand that it be redressed. Had it not better be redressed sooner than later? I trust the right honourable Gentleman will this evening see his way towards redressing this grievance, and that he will give some promise to meet this case. If he does not I shall be compelled, unwillingly, to divide the House on this question. I believe it to be an important matter, and I am quite sure that no half-dozen men who meet together and impartially consider these words could come to any other conclusion than that the postmen of this country were intended to have overtime payment in the same way as the indoor staff. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will concede it as a simple act of justice, and not compel me to divide the Committee this evening. I believe that the

  379
  case could not possibly be stronger, and if I have not placed it before the Committee in a sufficiently strong light, it is no fault of the case; it is the fault of the advocate. I know I am engaged in an unequal contest. The long experience and great ability of the right honourable Gentleman will enable him to put arguments forward to-day which, no doubt, will gain applause; but he cannot get over the plain interpretation of the English language. I ask the Committee not to be led astray by plausible arguments, but to remember that the root and branch of the whole matter is that Lord Tweedmouth's Committee's Report has been accepted by the Post Office and by the Treasury, and that that Report recognises that there should be throughout the service a uniform payment for overtime. I beg to move—
  "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100 in respect of the salary of the Postmaster General."
  MR. KEARLEY: I wish to speak as to the differential treatment meted out to the indoor staff at Devonport, as contrasted with the staff at Plymouth. As the right honourable Gentleman is aware, the Three Towns practically comprise one population, but, strange to say, the pay of the indoor staff at Devonport is altogether different from that of the Plymouth staff. Prior, I think, to the 31st March last year the pay of the second class staff at Plymouth ranged up to 40s. a week, and the same scale obtained at Devonport. As an outcome of the Tweedmouth inquiry, the second class were advanced at Plymouth to 52s. The class became, in fact, an amalgamated one with the first class, and every member of the staff received the opportunity of rising to a maximum of 52s. weekly. But in Devonport the only concession made was that the maximum was extended to 44s. a week. Now, I addressed a question on this matter to the right honourable Gentleman last year, and when the inquiry was going on upstairs last July I presented to the Postmaster General a petition dealing with the subject in detail. Although received a very courteous reply, it was not satisfactory. May I point out that Devonport differs in this respect from Plymouth, that the sorting clerks
  380
  and telegraphists perform counter and telegraph duties in addition to sorting duties; but in Plymouth they do not do that. The reply of the right honourable Gentleman to me was that the difference in pay was due to the difference in the amount of business done at the two offices. But I should like to point out that Devonport is equally as important as Plymouth, so far as regards the duties performed. Let me give one or two illustrations. In Devonport across the counter £3,000 a week is paid out in pensions. Nothing like that amount is paid out at Plymouth. Devonport is a great naval centre—an enormous amount of correspondence in connection with the Fleet is always passing, entailing the forwarding and re-direction of letters to all parts of the world. There is, too, a similar amount of work in connection with the Army; the population is increasing, and vast sums of money are being expended on the extension of naval works—not less a sum than £4,000,000 sterling. The postal work is necessarily increasing in every direction, and I am sure it is equally as heavy as—I feel inclined to say it is more heavy than—that at Plymouth. After all, Devonport is part of Plymouth, as much as Notting Hill is part of London. Why should a difference be made in the pay at Plymouth, and Devonport any more than there is at Kennington and Notting Hill? Although the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman might apply to towns wide apart, it certainly ought not to apply to one of the Three Towns which adjoin. I will adduce one more argument. In 1896 the postmen of Devonport petitioned that they should be placed on the same basis as the postmen of Plymouth. Inquiry was made into the matter, and the point was conceded. At the present moment the postmen in the Three Towns are in receipt of the same rate of pay. What I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman is to afford us satisfaction by assimilating the rates of pay, so far as the indoor staff are concerned. Let Devonport and Plymouth have the same scale; let Devonport get as much as Plymouth now does. I have only one other question to raise. I understand that clerks with a dual knowledge of postal and telegraph work, after

  381
  24 years of age, were given to understand that they would receive the double increment. Now, the postmaster of Devonport has recommended certain, men for that double increment, but there is a Minute in the book at Devonport to the effect that the Secretary has decided that the double increment rule only applies to officers in Schedule A, and that Devonport is in Schedule B. The men complain that they are debarred from earning the double increment simply because they are not in Schedule A. That makes it doubly hard, for men in Schedule A have the power of earning a maximum of 52s. weekly, which is denied to the men in Schedule B. Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman, will explain what justifies him in denying to the indoor staff at Devonport the same opportunity of advancing to a maximum of 52 s. a week, which is the privilege of the Plymouth indoor staff.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I quite recognise the difficulty which the honourable Member opposite has felt in dealing with a subject which is no doubt, to a great extent, technical. He hag spoken on the question of double increment, and has pointed out how, though a boon was promised by the Government, it is very seldom attained by the men. He did not point out, but I believe it to be the case, that 34 per cent. of a certain body of men who might apparently have qualified for the double increment are excluded from it for postal qualifications. I believe it is the case that out of all the men employed in one large office only 15 get it, and this is accounted for by the examination being so stiff. Having had some information, given me as to the questions asked, I must say that they are exceptionally stiff, and I am not surprised at the number of men who are incapable of passing the examination. At the same time, I think there is another reason for this difficulty in qualifying, and that is the matter of the overtime which they have to put in. In the Liverpool office, in three weeks in the month of May—the weeks ending May 7th, 14th, and 21st—it appears that the total number of hours of overtime performed exceeded 2,400 in each week. It seems to me, therefore, very reason-
  382
  able that if men are to specially qualify themselves for the examination they should not have to do so much overtime; they really ought to have some leisure in which to devote themselves to the study of subjects which alone enable them to earn this double increment. I have another point to bring under the notice of the right honourable Gentleman. It may be only a temporary incident, but at the present time there is a great congestion of men employed in the present office. Things in this respect are by no means satisfactory, and I have to beg the right honourable Gentleman to hasten work and transfer the men from the old buildings to the new as soon as possible. There is every reason to think that great inconvenience prevails under the existing condition of affairs.
  MR. HANBURY: In regard to the remarks of the honourable Member for Devonport, he has raised a question as to the difference of pay between the indoor staff at Devonport and that at Plymouth, and he asks why it is that the postmen of Plymouth and Devonport are paid on the same scale, whereas the telegraphists and sorting clerks are paid different rates of wages. My answer to his question is this: that throughout the country the postmen are paid on a different system altogether than is applied to the indoor service. Postmen are paid, to a very great extent, according to the population of the towns in which they live, because their work is practically always the same. The rule which enters into the question of fixing their wages is the cost, of living in the town in which they work, and, as a rule, the cost of living in large towns is greater than in small towns, and the postmen in the larger towns get a higher scale of pay than those in the smaller towns.
  MR. LODER: Is it the same as regards telegraphists?
  MR. HANBURY: No, they are treated on a different system; they are paid according to the amount of work done in the office. I assume, therefore, that the work done at the Devonport office is not as much as that done at Plymouth.

  383
  If the honourable Gentleman thinks otherwise I will inquire into it. It is a matter easily ascertained, and if it turns out that the work done at Devonport is as much as that done at Plymouth, it is only fair that the staffs should be on the same footing as regards pay. The honourable Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool raised a point as to the double increment. He was wrong in saying that it cannot be earned until a man is 24 years of age. Although that was the decision of the Tweedmouth Committee, at the inquiry held before the Postmaster General and myself, it was decided that the privilege should be granted to men who had reached the age of 21. Then the honourable Member for Devonport asked why it is that the telegraphists and sorting clerks in the post office at Devonport have not the same advantages as the men who are in Schedule A. The real reason of that is, of course, that the men on Scale A are, of course, divided into sorters and telegraphists—the former being confined to sorting duties, and the latter to telegraphic work—and this increased pay has been promised them if they qualify for the double duties. A telegraphist's work is heavy at the time of year at which the sorters' work is light, and the sorters' work is heavy at the time the telegraphists' work is light. This scheme was devised to secure the more harmonious working of the duties of the office. But the privilege does not apply to sorting clerks and telegraphists in a place like Devonport, where they are already doing the double work, and are paid accordingly. It is only in towns in Class A that the distinction exists. Then my honourable Friend the Member for Liverpool complained that a large proportion of the men were outside the possibility of securing the advantage of this double increment—he said 54 per cent. The fact is that the great majority of the indoor men in the provinces are men who, as in the case of Devonport, have already been doing the double work—the sorting and telegraphic duties—and, therefore, of course, there is not the same necessity for offering them the inducement as exists in the case of the man who is simply either a telegraphist or a sorter. I may remind the honourable Gentleman, when he says they are shut
  384
  out from any double increment, that is not the case; the increment for qualifying in technical telegraphy is open to them all. No doubt it is a somewhat difficult examination, although I am told by some officers that it is nothing of the kind. A question has been raised by the honourable Member for Hastings which is based, I am sorry to say, upon an entire misapprehension of the wording of the Tweedmouth Report. He has taken one sentence out of the Report entirely apart from its context, and he has tried to prove that the sentence thus read bears the interpretation he puts upon it. I venture to say that even then——
  MR. LUCAS-SHADWELL: I read the whole paragraph.
  MR. HANBURY: I will quote exactly what the words are—
  "We think that there should be throughout the service a uniform payment for overtime."
  But that appears in a part of the Report which deals with those parts of the Post Office service which were already receiving payment for overtime. Postmen have never at any time received general payment for overtime, and if the Tweedmouth Committee had intended that an entirely new class, who had never been paid overtime, were now to receive it, they would have made a specific announcement on that point. This portion of the Report dealt wholly and solely with that class of servants who were already paid for overtime. If the words were to be interpreted strictly, as my honourable Friend suggests, they would apply to every branch of the Post Office service. No doubt, what has caused my honourable Friend to make this Motion is that the postmaster at St. Leonards read the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee in the sense in which my honourable Friend read it, and he did for three or four months after the Report was received pay the postmen for overtime. But that was an entire mistake on his part, and if the Post Office and Treasury had looked sternly at his misinterpretation of the Report, we should undoubtedly have been fully justified in asking the constituents of my honourable Friend to disgorge the pay-

  385
  ments which they had improperly received.
  SIR J. BAKER: Generally throughout the service the Report was read and interpreted in the same way as by the honourable Member for Hastings.
  MR. HANBURY: The only place we have received a complaint from is Hastings. The postmen have never before received payment of the kind, and if the Tweedmouth Committee had contemplated giving it to them they would have mentioned it. Is there not a reason why postmen should be treated differently from the indoor staff? A postman working away from his office is not under supervision. What happens in his case is this, as far as I can understand. He has to make certain collections and certain deliveries. The rule of the Post Office is that the man ought not to do more than eight hours' work per day, and if he is doing work which occupies him on the average more than eight hours the duty is rearranged, it being usual to leave a margin of a quarter or half hour under the eight hours to make up for a possible excess on special days, such as Christmas, and other times. If postmen were paid for overtime, there would be no check on them whatever. A man could not be watched during his walk, and if it happened that he wasted his time while delivering or collecting letters there is nothing to check him. What does happen is this: he is timed when he goes out and returns, and if it is found on many days that his work takes over eight hours, then inquiry is made. A man watches him, and sees whether the lateness of his return is due to the fact that he is unduly slow at his work, or whether the actual amount of work he has to do is more than can properly be done in eight hours, and, if it is, then the work is diminished. There are some cases in which overtime payment is given to postmen. When a man has to go to a railway station and wait for a train which is unduly late, he is paid. Again, a heavy snowstorm, or other bad weather, might delay a rural
  386
  messenger, and he would be unable to do his work in the ordinary calculated time. That would not be due to any fault of his, and he would get overtime. But as postmen when at work are not under supervision it is impossible to pay them overtime; consequently, then, work is calculated at a little under eight hours, to allow a margin. His position is entirely different to that of the indoor men, who are constantly under supervision, and it is possible to tell with them whether the necessity for overtime is due to negligence or to stress of work. Directly it can be proved that a postman's work exceeds eight hours, it is either diminished or he gets overtime.
  MR. ROBSON: I wish to refer to a matter of purely local concern. The right honourable Gentleman has pointed out that postmen are paid according to the supposed cost of living in the district in which they work, and that the scale of pay is determined by the population of the district in which they work. In the constituency which I represent (South Shields) there has of late years been a remarkable growth of population, and the result is that the maximum scale of pay to postmen is still regulated on what has become an obsolete basis, while the cost of living there is undoubtedly extremely high. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will take that into consideration. There is one other matter on which I owe the right honourable Gentleman some thanks, and I am going to make it the basis of a further demand. Up till very lately South Shields was not in direct communication with London, but had to receive its telegrams through the Newcastle post office. It has very generously and very properly been granted direct communication, but for some reason the privilege is not extended to news telegrams. There is a strong feeling that this direct communication should be utilised for news as well as for commercial and private telegrams, because, as has been pointed out by business men, Press telegrams often deal with matters of great commercial importance. The present delay in Press messages is extremely inconvenient. I have been asked to draw the attention of the right

  387
  honourable Gentleman to these two matters.
  MR. MENDL: I have a few words to say on behalf of my constituents, and I may observe that what I remark in regard to the postmen of Plymouth applies equally to the postmen of Devonport, who are on the same scale as the Plymouth men. I do not suppose that any towns have grown so rapidly in so short a time as the three towns of Devonport, Plymouth, and Stonehouse. The cost of living there at present is higher than in almost any other town. I believe a petition has been presented to the Postmaster General by the united postmen asking for an increase in their maximum, and I venture to suggest that the claim is an exceedingly strong one, and possesses the same considerations as those put forward by the honourable Member for South Shields. As to the difference in the scale of pay of the indoor staff of the two towns, I have not had the opportunity of inquiry into the facts, as my honourable Friend has done, but I may observe that there are many respects in which the telegraphists of Plymouth are not satisfied with the position in which they find themselves at the present time, and I have no doubt I may on another occasion be in a position to bring forward those matters. I do hope, however, the right honourable Gentleman will at once consider the petition of the postmen from the three towns.
  MR. DOOGAN: Before this Vote is taken I should like to remind briefly the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that nothing yet has been done to improve the very imperfect service, about which I have often complained before, in connection with the Innismore post office. The adjoining postal district of Derryharney has a morning service, an evening dispatch, and a house-to-house delivery, whereas Innismore district has only one service, on six days in each week, and that service takes place at seven o'clock in the morning, when a messenger is despatched to intercept the Derryharney
  388
  postman from Lisbellaw, to whom he hands the Innismore letters and receives at the same time the bag for Innismore, which had been made up in Lisbellaw. The effect of this arrangement is that letters posted in Innismore after the despatch of letters at seven o'clock in the morning would only reach the important county town of Enniskillen, which is only six and a half miles distant, at a late hour on the following evening. Now, the people of Innismore are naturally dissatisfied at the exceptional treatment which they are receiving, and at the loss and inconvenience to which they are put from being practically shut out from communication with their market town. I have on several occasions brought this matter under the notice of the right honourable Gentleman. He seemed to admit and recognise the grievance, and I had hoped that the Innismore district would be one of the first to which the benefit of the new scheme for house-to-house delivery would be extended. Instead of that, the neighbouring district or Derryharney, that had been comparatively well served, has enjoyed the convenience of a house-to-house delivery for several months, and nothing whatever has been done to improve the wretchedly bad and anomalous postal service in Innismore. I hope, therefore, that this will be the last appeal I shall have to make to have this local grievance redressed, and that the right honourable Gentleman will bring the matter under the consideration of the Postmaster General with a view to having an evening despatch of letters and a house-to-house delivery in connection with the Innismore post office conceded with the least possible delay.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I asked a Question of the Secretary to the Treasury some time ago with regard to appointments in the engineers' office at Belfast. The right honourable Gentleman gave me an answer which I do not think was satisfactory. There is a great deal of feeling on the subject in Belfast, among the Roman Catholic employees of the Post Office. I quite admit that it seems undesirable to introduce topics of

  389
  this kind; but the suggestion is, and it is borne out absolutely by the facts, that, whereas the Catholic candidates have out-stepped the Protestants in the engineers' office in their knowledge of telegraphy and special subjects, they have not got a fair share of the appointments to which they are entitled. I have received a very large volume of correspondence on the subject, but I will not trouble the right honourable Gentleman with it. I believe the head of the post office in Belfast is a Catholic. But I have no desire to introduce topics of this kind. All I wish to say is that where a competitive examination is prescribed by rules it is hard upon those who take part in it if, when they pass, they find that for religious considerations they are set aside. This is a matter which demands investigation. The names of the gentlemen who competed are known, and I think the Government might fairly undertake to see whether any rectification is possible.
  MR. HANBURY: The honourable Gentleman says that these facts are known. I do not know whether he means in Dublin or at the head office in London. If he will supply me with the facts I will undertake that the whole matter shall be considered.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If I give the right honourable Gentleman the papers will he consider them as confidential?
  MR. HANBURY: Certainly.
  Amendment put, and negatived without a Division.
  Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee to sit again this day.

  KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: Surely it is not usual to take Bills on a day allotted to Supply.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I opposed this Bill last year, because it seemed to be against the wishes of the then body of Kingstown Town Commissioners, and against the wish of my right honourable Friend the Member for South Dublin, who is an old constituent of Kingstown. But I do not propose to renew that opposition this year. At the same time, I do not think that Kingstown is making such a good bargain as it might have done. But the commissioners have been put under pressure to a considerable extent in a way I think unworthy of a Government, though I believe that the present Government are not immediately responsible. What happened was that Mr. Hibbert, when he was Secretary to the Treasury under a Home Rule Government, tried to force the Kingstown Town Commissioners to keep up a road which they were not legally bound to keep up, and he withdrew from them a sum of £200 a year, which they were entitled to in lieu of rates that should have been paid by the Government. That was as shabby an act as I have ever known any Government guilty of. The right honourable Gentleman has offered to make some reparation, and is now willing to hand over arrears amounting to more than £1,000 if the commissioners would take the road over. Well, I think the Treasury are getting the best of the bargain. But where a body like the Kingstown Town Commissioners—a body of intelligent men, consisting partly of Nationalists and partly of Conservatives, acting on their own responsibility—their clerk

  391
  and their chairman both being strong Conservatives, join in an agreement that this Bill is a beneficial Bill, which ought to be introduced, then I do not feel, however much I object to the Bill, I should be right in renewing my opposition to it. I refrain from doing so then with a clear conscience.
  DR. CLARK: Will the First Lord of the Treasury explain how it is that this Bill is being taken in spite of the understanding that on days allocated to Supply no Bills are to be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am more anxious than anybody to preserve immaculate the days allotted to Supply, but the understanding is that on such days nothing shall be done to curtail the normal hours between the end of Questions and midnight. But I do not think there can be any objection to taking an uncontroversial Bill of this kind, and certainly the privileges of the House in the matter of Supply are not being entrenched upon in any way.
  DR. CLARK: I do not think we should take Bills on Supply days, seeing that soon Supply will be closured.

BILLS WITHDRAWN.
  PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  Order for Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  LAND CHARGES BILL. [H.L.]
  Order for Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  LODGERS' DECLARATIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. [H.L.]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  LUNACY BILL. [H.L.]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, ETC. (ADULTERATION), BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT SCHOOL (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 18th day of this instant July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at 1.5.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.
Committee to meet To-morrow.
PAIGNTON IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Committee to meet To-morrow.
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BILL.
Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
WINDSOR DOCK, CARDIFF, BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE RAIL- WAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed; and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DEVONPORT, PLYMOUTH AND STOKE TRAMWAYS BILL, NOW DEVONPORT AND DISTRICT TRAM- WAYS BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
MID-KENT WATER BILL.
Read the third time, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
BUCKIE (CLUNY) HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  I.—Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:
  No. 2161. Sweden (Gothenburg);
  No. 2162. Portugal (Lourenço Marquess);
  No. 2163. Turkey (Erzeroum);
  No. 2164. France (Algeria);
  No. 2165. Japan (Yokohama):
  II.—Miscellaneous Series: Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest:
  No. 471.—Russia (Beetroot sugar industry in Russia since its first introduction in 1800).

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (FRENCH MATCH WORKS).
  Report of a visit of inspection to French match works at Aubervilliers, Pantin, and Marseilles, by Thomas Oliver, M.D., F.R.C.P., Physician to the Royal Infirmary, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Supplement to the Twenty-seventh Annual Report; containing the report of the medical officer, for 1897–98.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Annual Report for the year ended 31st March, 1898; with appendices.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June, 1898.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK.
  Report of the President, for the session 1897–98.
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Return as to the capital, traffic, receipts, and working expenditure, etc., of the railway companies of the United Kingdom, for the year 1897.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  I.—Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of light railways—

  (1) In the East Riding of the county of York, from Carnaby Station to North Frodingham;

  (2) In the counties of Dumbarton and Argyll, between Arrochar and Loch Fyne;

  (3) In the county of Sutherland, between Forsinard, Melvich, and Port Skerra:

  II.—Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Hoard of Trade, empowering the Gifford and Garvald Railway Company to construct and work their authorised railway as a light railway.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India during the year 1896–97.
  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Account of deposits in Naval Savings Banks and the payments thereof, and of interest thereon, of all investments under the Naval Savings Banks Act, 1866, and the application of the interest or dividends accruing in respect thereof and of the proceeds of any sale of any stocks, annuities, or securities during the financial year 1896–97.
  Report of Arklow Harbour Commissioner, and statement of accounts, for 1897.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (OLDHAM).
  Resolution of the council of the borough of Oldham, re-dividing the Parliamentary and municipal borough of Oldham into polling districts.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON CORPORATION.
  Annual account of the Chamberlain of London: Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITION.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Against the sale of, on Sundays; of inhabitants of New Brompton; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS ADVANCED.
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be printed [No. 183], and to be considered on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 184.]
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  To be read the second time To-morrow: (The Marquess of Salisbury).
  TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
  To be read the second time To-morrow: (The Marquess of Salisbury).
  METROPOLITAN COMMONS BILL.
  To be read the second time on Friday the 5th of August next: (The Lord Rathmore).

  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (EAST SHEEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 16, after 'confirmed,' insert 'subject to certain modifications.'"—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 25, leave out 'and, and insert 'shall be modified so as to be in the terms,' and after 'hereto' insert 'as so modified.'"—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, lines 6 and 7, leave out 'as the same,' and insert 'which together with the freeboard of Richmond Park where it abuts upon the common.'"—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 9, after 'shall,' insert 'subject as hereinafter provided.'"—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 5, after line 36, insert—
  "14a. Where any part of the freeboard of Richmond Park abuts upon the common such part of the freeboard shall in addition to the common and subject as herein mentioned be subject to any by-laws made under this scheme. Provided that upon notice in writing to the Board of Agriculture given by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings all provisions of this scheme shall cease to apply to such part of the said freeboard or to any part thereof specified in such notice. Save as aforesaid, nothing contained in this scheme shall take away, prejudice, or injuriously affect any estate, interest, right, privilege, or power invested in or exercisable by or on behalf of the Crown and under the management of the Commissioners of Works in or over the freeboard of Richmond Park, or any part of the common, except with the consent and approval in writing of the said Commissioners and of the Treasury respectively, or shall take away, prejudice, or injuriously affect any right, interest, privilege, or power now or from time to time enjoyed or exercisable by tenants of the said freeboard or other the grantees or assigns of the Crown."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
  Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Tuesday next.
  CIRCUIT CLERKS OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  PARISH FIRE-ENGINES BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Tuesday next.
  MUSSEL FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
  COMPANIES ACT (1867) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time To-morrow: (The Marquess of Salisbury). [No. 185.]
  PRISONS BILL.
  Read the first time; to be printed; and to be read the second time To-morrow: (The Lord Belper). [No. 186.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) BILL.
  Read the first time; and to be printed [No. 187.]
PUBLIC BILL BUSINESS.

  BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read; the Queen's Consent and the Consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in right of his Duchy of Cornwall signified.
  EARL FORTESCUE: I have a very few remarks to make, but I am very desirous of stating why, though several of the provisions of the Bill claim my warm sympathy, such as the interdiction of the sale of next presentations—to prevent colourable evasions upon the abolition of the question of donatives—yet I cannot join at all in the confident anticipations of the successful or satisfactory working of the most important provision of the Bill. Before stating my reasons I must ask leave to say that the noble. Lord in charge of the Bill, quite unintentionally, I feel sure, misrepresented the Amendment I moved the other day and its object. A great portion of one of the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commission was comprised in my Amendment. It proposed to secure to the patrons, if they desired it, a hearing with lay assessors. The very last thing I contemplated was the substitution of diocesan courts for the new courts provided by the Bill with a lay judge. I am very hard of hearing, and that is my reason for so very tardily explaining what the abject of my Amendment was. It was to secure to the presentee or the
  114
  patron, if either of them desire it, a fair trial by the bishop with lay assessors. The Bill provides for no trial at all of that description. It does not mention any trial by the bishop, and, therefore, excepting for the presentee of the patron, there is no. provision for any trial. He may be a very innocent and most calumniated presentee, and yet he has to appeal against the refusal of the bishop to present. That appeal must be costly, and will involve some delay, even if he can afford it; but that is doubtful in the case of the clergy, who suffer so much by diminution of their incomes; and then, if he is unable to appeal, he must submit to that refusal with, all its terrible consequences, to his prospects and character. Clearly the main object of the Bill seems to be the exclusion from livings of undesirable and inefficient incumbents, with the very minimum expenditure of money by the bishop—an object very desirable in itself. Several men of long Parliamentary and official experience think that this has been arranged regardless of the importance of securing at least a fair preliminary trial by the bishops before the public trial, before he pronounces his refusal. Each refusal must practically be as public as the notice of the name of the presentee to the parish. As I said, there is only one single trial, and this is called the trial on appeal. I cited an authority the other day to show the great importance of appeals, the case of the vicar of Silvertown, who, after being unjustly condemned by the Consistory Court, was entirely exonerated on appeal to the Privy Council; and I have the authority of Dr. Tristram for saying, when the judgment of those distinguished judges had been reversed on appeal to the Privy Council, that Dr. Lushington, in spite of his long experience and great ability as a judge, had assured him that he always approached these cases with great anxiety. The Bill does not seem to me to provide any adequate protection against the serious consequences to a very possibly innocent person. The Ecclesiastical Commission, however, comprised no fewer than 12 eminent ecclesiastics, of whom eight were either actually prelates, or were about to

  115
  become prelates, not to speak of eminent lawyers, and they, with practical unanimity, showed their episcopal discretion by coming, to this conclusion which, put shortly, is this: that a bishop may not act alone in any such cases without a legal assessor, but a lawyer might, under certain circumstances, sit alone on these cases. I must say that nothing has happened since the unanimous view taken by these eminent ecclesiastics in 1883 to satisfy the lay members of the Church of England, at any rate, that it is any more desirable now that the bishop should have greater discretion under this Bill than when no fewer than eight actual or existing prelates unanimously agreed that it was undesirable that they should sit alone in hearing such cases. That recommendation was as follows—
  "If the clergyman does not submit or if the complainant refuses to consent to the bishop pronouncing sentence without trial, a complainant may set down the case for hearing before the diocesan court. The diocesan court shall consist of the bishop, with whom shall sit, as legal assessor, the chancellor of the diocese, or some other person learned in the law at the discretion of the bishop, unless tile bishop shall call upon the chancellor to heap the case alone, or sends the case direct to the court of the province if both parties give consent."
  I would also draw your Lordships' attention once again to the remarkable report of Lord Penzance on this matter. He uses very strong language. He says—
  "Speaking generally, where discretion begins, the proper administration of the law, as such, ends."
  He says that he does not consider that for the administration of strict law in this sense an ecclesiastic is, by his training and acquirements, well qualified. He says
  "that the bishop would not be careful to follow decided cases with which, perhaps, he would be little familiar, and that he would be apt to import into the enunciation of the law considerations of policy and the elasticity of discretion. The probable result would be a startling divergence of opinion in different dioceses, which, by rendering the law uncertain, would bring it into discredit and impair its efficiency."
  It is a matter of difficulty and of perplexity to those who have to obey the
  116
  law. No one individual proposes to himself too high a standard of duty as legally obligatory on the members of the clerical profession, and the danger is a tendency to encourage a policy of divergence and a spirit of adulation—and adulation is or should be disagreeable to the adulated and degrading to the adulator. I only hope that the unfavourable anticipations which I hold, which are quite sincere, may turn out to be unfounded, and I also hope that the most sanguine anticipations of the good results which will flow from this Bill may be verified, and that I shall prove to be mistaken in its consequences.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I have been unable to be in my place during the previous stages of this Bill, and I should like to say a few words before it passes beyond our ken and receives the Royal assent. My Lords, I can but take this view of the Bill, that it is founded on the maxim of a well-known and very powerful religious order of the Roman Catholic Church, that you may do evil that good may come. My Lords, I do not for a moment dispute the good intentions of those who are dealing with this matter. It is no doubt essential that there should not be abuses of patronage in the interests of the congregation, the parishioners, and the Church, but I hold it to be absolutely unnecessary that in legislation of this kind you should do evil and introduce evil principles. Now, is there one of your Lordships who is prepared to deny that there are evil principles in this Bill? My Lords, how does it deal with property? An advowson is as much a property as any property belonging to your Lordships. It is transferable, it is heritable, and it is assessed for public purposes; and those who hold this property say that this Bill will materially affect its value—its pecuniary value. And one writer says that it is practically a confiscatory Measure, and that no amount of cant or hypocrisy will make it other. Another gentleman whose letter I have here—what does he say about the Bill as it stands, and to which your Lordships are about to give a Third Reading? He says—
  "As the owner of an advowson, which is the sole property I have to leave to my children";

  117
  he then thanks me for a letter I wrote to the Times, and says—
  "I protest against this confiscatory Measure."
  This Bill does not deal in that way with property, and I imagine that it is unnecessary that it should do so, because you might have given compensation as you have done in other cases. I am happy to say that, although I come from the land of Rob Roy, we do not treat patronage in Scot land in the way your Lordships are about to treat it in this country, because when patronage was abolished compensation was given to those patrons who chose to take it. Very few did, but they had the chance. So far as regards the question of property, what is the reason that advowsons are treated in this way—differently from other property? I imagine that the flattering unction that those who are responsible for this Bill lay to their souls and the salve they lay to their consciences is this, that it is a peculiar property, that it is exceptional property, and that, therefore, because it is exceptional and peculiar, you are justified in applying to it exceptional legislation. Exceptional legislation! That is a term which is all too well known to your Lordships, especially to my friends who come from Ireland. Twenty-eight years ago we heard a good deal about exceptional legislation—you are only to do this because it is such an exceptional case. The principle was wrong in the Irish Land Bill; that we admitted; but still it was said, this is so exceptional a case you need have no fear. My Lords, from that hour to this Parliament has been up to the neck in exceptional legislation, and in dealing with contracts in every sort of way, and in interfering with everybody and everything, and all that, and always in consequence of the great breach, which was made in the sound principles of legislation by the Irish Land Bill, which I believe at that time was said to transfer £95,000,000 worth of property from one class of men to another, simply because one class of men shot their landlords. That, I believe, was the whole secret of the Land Bill legislation. If you apply this exceptional legislation to property of this kind, which a man
  118
  says is all he has to transmit to his children, and the value of which you are knocking down by this Bill, do you suppose for a moment that the evil principle will not tell some day, if things go on at the rate they are going, against Church property, and that it will not tell against the property of your Lordships, whether it be in England, Scotland, or Ireland, or even to those who shall then hold the property of Hatfield? It is as certain as it is certain that the sun will rise, and that is the result of indulging in this evil legislation, and saying, as an excuse, that it is exceptional. There is one other point, and that is the question of the man's civil rights. Can anything be more valuable or more carefully guarded than the rights of a free-born Englishman to civil rights which he has obtained through centuries of history—striking for liberty, and cutting off kings' heads, and things of that kind? What do you do by this Act? Can anyone deny that you take away from a man his civil rights—I care not who it be, the Anglican priest or any other priest, call him what you may—he has a right to appeal to the ordinary tribunals of the Crown. You take that from him, and what do you establish in its stead? A hybrid court with an archbishop at its head and a lay judge assessor at his side. But what is that but the substitution of an episcopal tribunal for the ordinary tribunals of the land? And I venture, my Lords, to say that that is a thoroughly retrograde step, and in this letter to which I have referred the writer ends by saying this—
  "I am surprised that no one in the House of Lords has been found to raise his voice against this confiscatory Measure, which is opposed to common honesty."
  Considering the very strong views that I entertain upon this matter, I felt that I should not be doing justice to those strong feelings if I did not trouble your Lordships with these few words.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In reply to the noble Earl behind me it is quite true, and I greatly regret it, that I did misunderstand the exact object of his Amendment. I thought he proposed to substitute a fresh court for the court pro-

  119
  posed by the Government in clause 3, whereas his object was not to substitute a fresh court, but to introduce another court, to make two courts to have jurisdiction instead of one. If I had understood fully at that time what the noble Lord proposed, it would hare been equally my duty to say that it was quite impossible for the Government to accept that great addition to the machinery and consequently to the costs of the operation of this Measure. Nor can I allow that the Silvertown case is at all parallel to any case which may arise in this Act. In the case of the Clergy Discipline Act we were dealing with the case of clergy who have a freehold. This deals with clergy who are presented, and who have not yet got the freehold. I am afraid I must be content to differ from the noble Earl as to the proper machinery for dealing with this question and as to the likely effect of this Bill. I am sure that your Lordships greatly regret the reasons which have prevented the noble Earl who spoke last from being present during its previous stages. The noble Earl objects to the Bill because he says it proposes to do evil that good may come. With the greatest respect to the noble Earl I do not think that he has really read this Bill. In the first place, he holds it up to your Lordships' reprobation because it will decrease the value of advowsons—that it is an unwarrantable interference with the rights of property, and he holds up for your Lordships' admiration the procedure which took place in Scotland. In Scotland the whole right of private patronage was abolished and compensation certainly was given. But this Bill does not abolish the right of patronage at all, it abolishes the power to divide the right of patronage, and to sell the next presentation apart from, the whole thing—that is very different to abolishing the right of presentation altogether. As regards also the deprivation of the Anglican priest of his civil rights by the court set up by this Bill the noble Earl described that court as one with the archbishop at its head and the judge sitting by his side as lay assessor. A more inaccurate description of that court could not be well imagined. The judge and the archbishop are of equal authority, but so far as the
  120
  question of fact is concerned the judge is the sole authority, and the archbishop is to take the law and the facts as the judge finds them. If that is the position of an assessor, then his position as estimated in the eyes of the noble Earl must be different to that which it is in the conception of your Lordships. I am afraid that the noble Earl and the Government differ fundamentally as to the rights of property and the responsibilities of the trust, which together make up an advowson. Her Majesty's Government have considered all through, as I have said, that the property is incidental to the trust, and not the trust to the property. That is the view with which this Bill was framed, and I trust that it is with that view that your Lordships will assent to the Third Reading.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the Bill be read a third time."
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There are one or two Amendments, if your Lordships will consent to put them in now.

  CLAUSE 9.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 6, lines 16 and 17, leave out 'non-resident,' and insert 'not resident as therein mentioned.'"—(The Earl of Selborne)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 10.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, line 6, after 'bishop,' insert 'in the manner and within the time to be prescribed.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, line 6, after 'bishop,' insert 'in the prescribed manner.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 11.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 7, line 21, after 'court,' insert 'and otherwise for carrying the purposes of this Act into effect.'"—(The, Earl of Selborne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 13.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 8, lines 20 and 21, leave out 'not referring to matters of doctrine and ritual,' and insert 'as to conduct.'"—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think I should give some short explanation as to the reason for this Amendment. The words matters of ritual and doctrine were meant really as a direction to questions of conduct, and it is thought that the words "as to conduct" deal with the matter more effectually and comprehensively. It has been pointed out that the insertion of the words as they are in the Bill, together with the words in the previous clause, might have the effect of it being argued that the questions of doctrine and ritual were altogether excluded from questions of negligence. In the matter of negligence this Act merely incorporated the existing law under the Clergy Discipline Act, and the question of negligence may involve questions which come within the meaning of the words doctrine and ritual. Supposing an incumbent neglected the Sunday services—that would come within the head of doctrine and ritual. It would be a matter of great regret if the law were altered in that respect, and the substitution of these words is thought to avoid that danger.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the Bill be passed."
  Agreed to.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  House went into Committee. The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY) in the Chair.

  CLAUSE 1.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 24, leave out 'a,' and insert 'the.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 26, leave out 'offered," and insert 'given.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, lines 27 and 28, leave out 'clerk of the court and,' and insert 'proper officer of the court by which the offender is to be tried, and to.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed through Committee, and reported to the House.
  House resumed.

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES (DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION (BORDER COUNTY COUNCILS) (No. 2) BILL.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): There is a power of the Local Government Board by Provisional Order to make joint committees of county councils for the enforcement of the Rivers Pollution Act in England. There is a similar power in Scotland to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it has been discovered that there is no power to make a joint committee where the river runs partly through England and partly through Scotland—that is the case with the Tweed—and the object of this Bill is to give power to appoint some joint committee in that case, as in other cases that I have mentioned. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the Bill be read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  Bill read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  PAUPER CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read the third time on Tuesday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 30, leave out 'election of,' and insert 'choosing.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, line 34, after the word 'chairman,' insert 'subject as hereinafter provided.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): I have an Amendment which I have put down to clause 93, and it is necessary that I should put in words in support of that Amendment in clause 3. I therefore propose—
  "Page 2, line 34, after the word 'chairman,' to insert the words, 'subject as hereinafter provided."
  That is the clause which, directs the chairman of a county council to be an ex-officio magistrate. When this matter was in Committee the noble Earl drew attention to the position that would be occupied by these ex-officio magistrates, and pointed out the desirability of placing them in the same position as the other magistrates in Ireland—that is, making them amenable to the control of the Lord Chancellor. I promised on the discussion that I would consider the matter before Report. I did not see my way to take the words which the noble Lord suggested, but I can see no reason why these magistrates should be in the position of all the county magistrates in Ireland, and there is no reason why the Lord Chancellor should not have the power, if there chances to be any misconduct, of dealing with them in their position as magistrates. I have dealt with that in the clause to which I have referred—namely, clause 93—and I have done it in this way—
  "Every such chairman who is by virtue of this Act a justice of the peace shall, notwithstanding anything in the other provisions of this Act, be subject to the same restrictions, disqualifications, and power of removal as any other justice of the peace."
  That is a prudent and sensible Amendment. I am aware that it is not in the English law at present, but I believe it has been looked upon, as an omission that it would be very desirable to cure. I have heard that it is so. I do not understand that there will be any more occasion with reference to these magistrates to use this power of the Lord Chancellor

  125
  than there is in the case of the other magistrates, but every officer must have some person over him. Her Majesty's lieutenants for counties may be removed on the determination of her will, and every other magistrate is subjected to the control—the necessary, prudent, cautious control of the Lord Chancellor. I do not want to go into the class of case where my own interference has been requested; they are not numerous, and they are managed with caution and with forbearance, and with every consideration for the feelings of the person named. Take one case for example. There may be some intemperance, and if a man in the position of a county magistrate, no matter what his social standing or rank, forgets himself so far as to give way to intemperance, and thus brings the administration of justice into disrepute—that is a case for the exercise of the Lord Chancellor's power, which is never used unnecessarily, and, as I have said, is always used with every consideration possible. I think this will commend itself to your Lordships' judgment. I believe it is desirable in all parts of the United Kingdom, and therefore I think it would be reasonable to introduce it into this Bill.
  THE EARL OF ERNE: The Amendment which the noble Lord has placed on the Paper goes very largely to meet the objections I have to the clause. There is one point which it does not cover, but the whole thing is surrounded by difficulties, and I am quite conscious of the fact that the position of the chairman of the county council is not the same as the chairman of the district council, which is very well safeguarded in this Bill. On the whole, I think it better to accept my noble Friend's Amendment, and I am quite content to leave the matter as he suggests, namely, at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I heartily appreciate the Amendment, and I think it is a misfortune that it was not put into the English Act, or that some such provision as this should have been inserted therein. I had had my intention called once or twice to the omission of such a power, and I think it was only by inadvertence that it was omitted. As
  126
  your Lordships are aware, I suppose that the general observation would be that the next time he asked for election ha would not be elected if he had misconducted himself in the meantime. But during the period of his tenure of office he may be guilty of any misconduct whatsoever, and there would be no power of removing him. I daresay your Lordships will remember that something of the sort was discovered with reference to the misconduct of a coroner. He was elected by the freeholders of the county, and just in the same way as happens hare, there was no power to remove him, and so Parliament passed an Act of Parliament which gave the Lord Chancellor for the time being the same power to remove a coroner for misconduct as he possesses over any magistrate in the commission of the peace, and I think that power should be possessed over magistrates who hold office because they are chairmen of county and district councils. It has happened more than once—the particular case of intemperance to which the noble Lord referred has in fact happened—and I think that it is not calculated to increase the respect for the administration of justice when a person has been before a bench of magistrates one day, and has been fined, and on the following day he is sitting there passing judgment upon persons guilty of a similar offence. I therefore very heartily approve of the Amendment, and trust it will be followed by beneficial results.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed.

  CLAUSE 8.
  "Page 5, line 19, after 'road' insert the expense of.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)

  CLAUSE 9.
  "Page 7, lines 6 and 7, leave out 'and' in every place where it occurs, and insert 'or.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  "Page 8, line 4K, after 'such,' insert 'joint.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  "Page 8, line 6, after 'such,' insert 'joint.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)

  CLAUSE 10.
  "Page 10, line 10, leave out 'a,' and insert 'the.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  CLAUSE 14.
  "Page 12, line 32, leave out 'made,' and insert 'paid.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)

  CLAUSE 15.
  "Page 13, line 4, after 'every,' insert 'such.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendments agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Clause 15 provides for the sum which the county council may raise to maintain its county infirmary. In the county of Cork there are two infirmaries—the South Cork Infirmary and the North Cork Infirmary—and both receive county patients. But the county council has no power to make any contribution to the funds of the North Cork Infirmary; it is unable to apportion the sum that it has power to raise between the two institutions which do its work. The Amendment which I have to move is this—
  "Page 14, line 22, after the word 'upon,' insert 'and in the case of the county of Cork the county council may contribute a portion of the sum mentioned in sub-section 1 of this section towards the maintenance of the North Cork Infirmary in the city of Cork upon such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as may be decided upon by the council of the county of Cork and of the county borough of Cork.'"
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: As I understand the proposal of my noble Friend, it is this: it does not propose to enable the county of Cork to raise any further sum whatever than they are entitled to do at the present moment, and it only proposes to give them a power to apportion the sum which they are at present empowered to raise between the two infirmaries, which at present practically do the work of the county. Without this Amendment I gather that they will be bound only to contribute to one and will be unable to contribute to the other, even although it may be doing a substantial amount of the county work. I can see no objection to that Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 14, after line 29, add as a new subsection—
  "An urban district council may, with the approval of the Local Government Board, annually contribute towards any infirmary or fever hospital in the county in which such urban district is situate, or in any county borough in such county, such sum as they think fit."—(Lord Ardilaun.)
  LORD ARDILAUN: I am anxious to know what the noble and learned Lord thinks of this sub-section.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My noble Friend has said nothing in explanation of this, but the acceptance of this new sub-section would make an immense change in the whole constitution of affairs. This would enable any urban district to contribute to any infirmary at all. That is a tremendously wide order, without any restriction whatever.
  LORD ARDILAUN: Situated in the county, and with the consent of the Local Government Board.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I am aware of that, but at present there is no power in the urban districts to make these contributions to neighbouring hospitals. This is intended to meet a case in the neighbourhood of Dublin. According to our present law it is competent for any urban district council to select their area for their charitable contributions, which is entirely different from enabling them to deal with the sum that is raised that is already ear-marked and registered. This Amendment would enable them to have an addition to their powers of taxation, and I do not see how we can sanction that. It would be a substantial addition to the taxing powers. There is power already given on the face of the Act, enabling these contributions to be given by them. My noble Friend's Amendment will enable them to select according to their discretion a new area with the approval of the Local Government Board, for their philanthropic and charitable contributions, which must be raised by taxation, and I do not see how that can be done.
  LORD ARDILAUN: In sub-section 10 the noble and learned Lord will find that—
  "any county councils may agree for the contribution by one council to the county infirmary or fever hospital of the other council, on such conditions as to the admission to the infirmary or hospital of patients from the county of the contributing council, and the representation of that council on the committee for managing the infirmary or hospital, as may be agreed upon."
  But, while county councils are allowed to do this, the urban council is excepted and cannot do it, and what the result would be is that the urban sanitary authority might be obliged to build hospitals themselves, while in an adjoining county or an adjoining township or adjoining street there are hospitals ready, which in the past the township has made use of and contributed to. The city of Dublin subscribes to hospitals within its own area, and by adopting my suggestion these townships would be saved a large amount of taxation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must remind the noble Lord that we are not in Committee.
  LORD ARDILAUN: I have not spoken before. May I explain, with the indulgence of your Lordships, because it is a matter of very considerable importance. The Board of Commissioners will be the urban authority, and we shall find very great difficulty if we are obliged to build hospitals, and the ratepayers will feel it too.
  THB LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Equally with the indulgence of your Lordships, I will explain that subsection 10, to which the noble Lord has referred, enables county councils to join together to contribute to the county infirmary or fever hospital. These recommendations have obvious and wise reasons. My noble Friend, by his new clause, would enable the urban district council by itself to select an independent hospital; that would require new taxation, and that is why I cannot accept it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Leave out clause 19, and insert as a new clause—

  "(1) A county council may prosecute for any penalty under section six of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882.

  "(2) The provisions of section eleven of the said Act (defining ancient monuments to which this Act applies) and section one of the Ancient Monuments Protection (Ireland) Act, 1892, shall have effect as if they were herein re-enacted, with the substitution of 'county council' for 'Commissioner of Works'; but this enactment shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the existing provisions of the said section as respects the Commissioner of Works."—(Earl Dunraven.)

  EARL DUNRAVEN: I move to omit clause 19, and to insert the new clause which I have down on the Paper. It is obvious that we require some definition of what ancient monuments are. For instance, I had a letter from a Friend in Ireland, asking me whether, in the case of grand juries secretaries of 20 years' service should be considered as an ancient monument within the meaning of this Act, and therefore to be maintained at the public expense. I think that the clause I propose to insert will meet all the requirements of the case. I believe it meets with the approval of Her Majesty's Government, and I think it will ensure that an ancient monument of historical or archæological value will be preserved and safeguarded, and at the same time no frivolous interference on the part of those interested in remains of no historical value can take place.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think it is a wise course suggested by my noble Friend, and I accept his Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 21.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 16, line 40, leave out 'time of election.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 17, line 23, leave out from the beginning of line to the end of the clause."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 23.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 5, leave out from 'division' to 'except,' in line 7."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 13, leave out 'shall have,' and insert 'may give in an electoral division.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 23, leave out from 'district' to the end of the clause."—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I am sorry to bring this clause up again, but there is one point which requires elucidation, and I should like to ask my noble and learned Friend, with regard to the latter part of the section, whether any person who is in default with his rates can be qualified to be a councillor by 12 months' residence subsequent to such default, because if, by residence, he qualifies himself for election, whether he has paid his rates or not, then that embraces the wide class of evicted tenants, and people living in Land League huts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: There are two classes of people that are covered by my honourable Friend's Amendment. The qualifying sub-section is sub-section 4, and that says—
  "A person shall not be qualified to be elected or to be a councillor of the council of a county district unless he is a local govern-
  132
  ment elector for the district, or has, during the whole of the twelve months preceding the election, resided, and continues to reside, in the district."
  That is quite fair. It was thought wise in England, and we have followed the English precedent. The clause qualifies two sets of persons—the local government elector and the person who has resided 12 months in the district. That simply means that you are not to inquire into any qualification but the qualification of residence.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: If he is a defaulter in his rates.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: That is a circumstance that affects his own mind, but it does not deal with the fact that he has lived there. It is a question for the electors. Will they elect a person who is a local government elector for the district, or will they elect one who is qualified by a residence of 12 months? I am informed that the reason for admitting the latter class was to enable ladies to be elected, and also to enable eldest sons to be elected. Of course, you can in England, as in Ireland, or in any place, suggest that you might elect foolish and improper representatives, but you must trust that the constituencies will occasionally be wise and that they will elect prudent and wise representatives.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: It seems to me that the occupant of a Land League hut might be elected, and I think that, from our experience of Ireland, there is a great possibility of this class of men being thrust upon us. A clause of this kind might work very differently in Ireland to what it does in England, and if we have anything like the experience in the future that we have had in the pest, I think it is not at all improbable that the case I have mentioned would come before the authorities. Is it desirable in legislation to allow such a case to happen? I do not say it would happen, but I think there is every possibility of its happening. It is very important to consider these matters. My noble and learned Friend seems to treat all the objections of the Irish landlords as of no importance, and seems inclined to refuse all their attempts at amending the Bill. In fact,

  133
  he says that he will have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Oh, no; I have never said any such thing.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: You put us on one side in all these things. I entirely agree that it is a very important matter indeed to allow eldest sons to be elected.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: And ladies?
  LORD INCHIQUIN: Yes. So far as I am concerned, I should be very glad indeed to have my son, who happens to be my agent, on the council. But if you allow them to be on the councils you must also allow other things to happen, and the cases I have mentioned about Land League huts and labourers' cottages are cases of the greatest importance. Is it desirable to allow a man to be elected who is the occupant of a labourer's cottage? Is it desirable to give such a man an opportunity of occupying, taking a permanent part in matters of such importance as those which come before a board of guardians? Is that desirable or not? If it is not desirable, then I think the noble and learned Lord should say he does not consider it desirable, and should strike it out of the Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): We are perfectly ready to discuss this Amendment in a reasonable spirit, and I put it to the noble Earl who has moved it that this clause as it stands, as a whole, is a very fair and just clause. It may be very true that under the clause the occupant of a labourer's cottage built under the Labourers Act—which is, I suppose, what is meant by the noble Lord who last spoke—or even the occupant of a Land League hut may be qualified for election. I must say that I do not see at first sight why the occupant of a cottage built under the Labourers Act should be considered as disqualified if the electors choose to return him. As to the occupant of a Land League hut, I confess I should be very sorry to see representatives of that class elected, but I think we ought to set against that risk, which is not a very immediate one, the
  134
  distinct advantage of allowing a son, living in his father's house, or a lady, to be elected to these councils. I suggest to the House that the advantage of this outweighs the disadvantages of the other risk, which fills so large a place in the imagination of the noble Lord.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 24.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 37, leave out 'for a district electoral division may give,' and insert 'may give in a district electoral division.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 25.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 11, leave out 'election of,' and insert 'choosing.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 26.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 24, leave out 'division,' and insert 'district.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  Page 20, line 25, leave out 'divisions,' and insert 'districts.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, same line, before 'district,' in each case, insert 'county.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 28, leave out from 'of' to 'shall,' in line 30, and insert 'the commissioners of any town.'"—(Lord Ashbourne)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, after 'Act,' in line 22, insert 'subject as hereinafter mentioned.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 20, line 22, after 'be,' insert 'during the term of an.'"—(The Earl of Erne.)
  THE EARL OF ERNE: This Amendment is simply to bring this clause into line with section 3, in which an Amendment was proposed by my noble Friend.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 27.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, line 9, after 'the,' insert 'expense of the.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 21, after line 21, insert as a new sub-section—
  "Except with the consent of the Local Government Board the expenditure of any county council, district council, or board of guardians (as the case may be) shall not in any year after the passing of this Act exceed by more than, one-fourth the amount certified by the Local Government Board to have been the average expenditure in such county, district, or union (as the case may be) during
  136
  the three years next before the passing of this Act in respect of the following items:

  "(a) Expenditure on outdoor relief;

  "(b) Expenditure under the Labourers Acts, 1883 to 1896;

  "(c) Expenditure in respect of any of the excluded charges specified in the first subsection of section fifty-six of this Act;

  "(d) Expenditure on industrial schools or on the maintenance of children therein. Provided always that no expenditure shall exceed any limit fixed in any existing Act in respect of the same."—(Lord Inchiquin.)

  LORD INCHIQUIN: I wish to point out that there is one error in this Amendment. In sub-section 3 it should be "fifty-seven of this Act," and not "fifty-six"; and the words at the end—
  "provided always that no expenditure shall exceed any limit fixed in any existing Act in respect of the same,"
  apply to the whole of the subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), and not to the '(d)' only, as appears to be the case from the way the clause is printed. This Amendment is practically identical with that moved by my noble Friend Lord Londonderry the other night. It is couched in different words, but in point of fact it would have the same effect. It raises the question of the 25 per cent. limit to other subjects than roads. Your Lordships understand that the clause in question limits the expenditure of the 25 per cent. to roads only. What we think is this: that the limit should be extended to cover the various points which are mentioned in my Amendment, and those points are these: expenditure on outdoor relief; expenditure under the Labourers Acts, 1883 to 1896; expenditure in respect of any of the excluded charges specified in the first sub-section of section 56 of this Act; and expenditure on industrial schools, or on the maintenance of children therein. These are subjects of such great importance, and involving such large expenditure, that we fail to see the force of, or agree with the argument of, the noble and learned Lord, that the 25 per cent. limit should not be extended to them. Now, the object of my Amendment is simply to extend that limit to these subjects which I have mentioned, and in asking your Lordships to agree to this I wish it clearly to be understood by the

  137
  House that there is nothing whatever to prevent any of these works being allowed to be carried out. No one is more ready to agree than I am that such works as waterworks, sanitary works, and all those other works, are of the utmost importance, and ought to be carried out. The question is, are you going to give carte blanche to a new body like the county council and the district council to spend all this money without some control? We think they ought to be controlled. It is not because we object to the expenditure of money, nor do we say that the money ought not to be spent in certain cases, but we think that the Local Government Board should have a word to say upon these matters. As your Lordships will probably recollect, I moved an Amendment the other day which the noble and learned Lord objected to, which was for keeping up the law of traverse, and one of the points of importance in that was in reference to railways, and other matters of that kind, which would come before the county council, and I pointed out that if that law of traverse were done away with, there would be no protection for the county council going into large expenditure with reference to the tramways and light railways. The noble and learned Lord said it was impossible to allow such a thing under the new system, but the same purpose of protecting the interests of the ratepayers will be served if this Amendment is adopted, because in all such cases where a large expenditure is required it will be necessary to have the sanction of the Local Government Board, and that is practically what I want. Now, I will give your Lordships a case in point. A few years ago, in our county, a large expenditure upon waterworks, if I remember aright, was proposed to be spent in the town of Ennis. It was a first-rate scheme, and I have nothing to say against it; but that scheme was one promoted by men whose sole object was to make money out of it. They promote these schemes in Ireland, and go round to the ratepayers, saying: "Look at the engineers that will be employed, and the labourers," and they get by that means the ratepayers to sanction schemes which are not sometimes desirable. That is really such an important point that I
  138
  cannot for the life of me see why the noble and learned Lord should propose a 25 per cent. limit on the road question, which is, of course, an important question, and object to having it on these other matters, which are of the very greatest importance. There is another point which I may mention, and I alluded to it the other day, and that was with reference to the building of workshops for our light railways. That is important and absolutely necessary. You must spend money in that direction. I leave it to your Lordships to consider what a very important thing it is that the Local Government Board should have the power of saying what the really necessary expenditure is, and not allow the county to be put to an enormous expense simply to put money into engineers' and surveyors' pockets. These engineers' plans might sound very well before the county council containing men, perhaps, who would like to give them a job, but they would in all probability recommend a larger expenditure of money than was absolutely necessary, simply in order to get a larger percentage; and I cannot see why the Local Government Board should not have a discretionary power. That would not stop any of these works, but it would mean that the Local Government Board could say how they are to be carried out. I think this is a matter of such great importance that I wanted my noble Friend to receive this Amendment, but he seems to be rather reluctant to do so. He also, as I understand, has come to some understanding with reference to his vote on this matter which might prejudice him. I mean to press this to a Division, because I consider the matter of such great importance that I propose to ask your Lordships to divide upon it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My noble Friend has alluded to myself, and therefore your Lordships will excuse me for trespassing upon you in discussing the provision of this very important Amendment. The other night I alluded at considerable length to what I thought might be the extraordinary expenditure that might take place under the coming district councils unless some limit was imposed. In pursuance of that idea, I put down what I considered the most important Amendment submitted to your

  139
  Lordships' House—namely, that the 25 per cent. should embrace all expenditure of all kinds at the hands of the district council, unless permission was given for extra expenditure by the Local Government Board. My noble Friend has said that I was unable to put that down in my own name. I had, together with some of my noble Friends, entered into a compact with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor for Ireland, that I anticipated that after the Committee stage had passed no Division would take place in this House on any other question. I was careful to say that I could only pledge myself on that matter, and that there were many noble Lords who knew far more about Ireland than I did who might not agree to be bound by that compact, and it was necessary that they should have a free hand upon that matter. That is the course that I have pursued; therefore, though I cordially endorse what has been said, I do not feel justified in supporting him by voting. I do agree most cordially with what he has said, that there should be this limit of expenditure, for the simple reason that abuse has taken place with respect to outdoor relief in Ireland which would not be for a moment tolerated, or would take place, in England. I know a number of cases showing the abuse that has been perpetrated by boards of guardians. Boards of guardians will be virtually district councils in the future, and if this abuse has taken place in the past, why should it take place in the future? I remember quoting cases more or less connected with the Secretary of State for War in which the evicted tenants were supported as candidates for outdoor relief. That, to my mind, is an absolute abuse of the power of boards of guardians, and a continuance of it would be an absolute abuse of the powers of district councils. I pointed out, I remember, that I was asking nothing in my Amendment—which I did not press to a Division—which was in any way an infringement of the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill referred this question to the discretion of the Local Government Board. If I had suggested that that limit should be referred to any other body—had I submitted that there should be any other safeguard besides that, I could understand the Government refus-
  140
  ing to accept it. This Amendment involves no infringement of the principle you have laid down. You do not think it a hardship that the district council should be limited with regard to the expenditure on roads; Why, therefore, should it be considered a hardship that their expenditure with regard to other matters should be limited, and when that limit would only be imposed if the Local Government Board considered it wise and necessary. I therefore, so far as I am concerned, most cordially support the Amendment of my noble Friend, and I only regret that I am not able to give him my vote.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: I am in the same position. I am unable to vote for this Amendment, and I regret it much because I consider the Amendment a very good one, and one which, if added to the Bill, would help very much to protect the ratepayer from any extravagance in the various districts of Ireland, especially with regard to outdoor relief. I am really quite alarmed at the power given with regard to outdoor relief. It is more than possible that a very large impetus will be given to those who favour outdoor relief. I hope the Government will be willing to accept this Amendment, because, if carried, it will do a great deal of good.
  LORD CLONBROCK: Although I was not present when the communication with the noble and learned Lord took place, and did not know exactly the terms of the agreement until afterwards, yet as the noble Marquess did me the honour to consult me beforehand, I consider myself bound not to give a vote on this Amendment. I also agree with him in hoping that the Government will see their way to accept it. It was said on a previous occasion that there was a check already existing on these items of expenditure. I do not think there is any check on one of them, and that by no means the least important; that is, the industrial schools. There have been considerable complaints made in many quarters about the large sums spent in maintaining children in industrial schools. I do think that that expenditure has got quite high enough, and that a limit should be imposed on future councils not to go beyond what has been

  141
  done by the grand juries. I do not see, also, that there is any check on outdoor relief, and on other matters. We have this to consider. There is to be a great change, to be produced in the administration of the poor law—the introduction of union rating. I know it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that this will check outdoor relief; but, from my own experience, and from conversations I have had with ratepayers of different classes, I very much doubt that. I think their argument is derived from what has happened in the distressed portions of Ireland, where the rules as to outdoor relief have been relaxed, and where the extra outdoor relief then granted has of late been made a union charge. The experience has been that the outdoor relief did not attain the same proportions as it did on previous occasions. I do not think that an entirely safe guide. I do not believe the distress was as acute as it has been on previous occasions. I also urge this argument: in the case of sudden great accession of outdoor relief, I can quite understand that the board would refuse to grant it; but if it were to be increased by driblets—one case this day, and another a week after, and so on—I do not believe that the board of guardians would be so likely to object. At present I know, if any charge falls on the division, it is looked after and checked, whereas, if it falls on the union at large, nobody takes any interest in it. I thoroughly approve of the Amendment, although I am not able to give my vote upon it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Two or three evenings ago, on the Committee stage practically, the Amendment and these topics were all discussed by my noble Friend Lord Londonderry with great force and clearness. I gave two reasons to the House, as well as I could, why in my opinion it was entirely inconsistent with the scope and purport of the Bill to be able to accede to the Motion. The object of the Bill is to extend to Ireland the substantial provisions which are contained in the English and Scotch Act. The popularly elected county council is to have the same power and control over the management of county affairs, aided by district councils in their different spheres of duty,
  142
  as the English and Scotch bodies. This Amendment would practically put the county council in every single one of its aspects under tutelage and control; and I have pointed out that I think the speeches that have been made by my noble Friends ignored the broad safeguards which do exist. The occupier is now made to pay all the rates. He is the man that will suffer the inconvenience of extravagance, if extravagance goes on, and if there is economy he is the man who will benefit by it. That is an immense change, and it is a great safeguard. £730,000, or some such figure, is the sum that is paid to accomplish the working out of that safeguard, and that is, of course, a good and substantial fact to be borne in mind in connection with this matter. The other safeguard that there is in that very clause is not found in the English Bill—a safeguard in reference to what might be a substantial danger—that is, the tendency to extravagance in making small roads in a district. That I admit is something that might involve extravagance, and that is abundantly safeguarded here. But the proposal which my noble Friends now pressed on your Lordships, would go infinitely beyond that altogether, and would treat all the new local bodies that are to be called into existence as if they were unworthy of being trusted at all. As I pointed out on the last occasion, this Bill leaves absolutely unchanged the poor law system. It does not transfer the administration of outdoor relief, or increase the power of granting outdoor relief. It leaves outdoor relief exactly where it found it, subject to all existing checks and controls—that it must not be given to able-bodied persons, or to a person in possession of an acre of land. It is subject to auditors' examination, and the whole administration of the poor law is left as it was found by the Bill—no new powers are given. The county council has no power in reference to it, and why it is germane to this discussion to seek to introduce checks and embarrassments on outdoor relief I am unable to see. There is already a check by Statute on extravagance. Under no circumstances can the rate for the Labourers Acts exceed 1s. These are matters that, I venture to think, should be taken into account. If the Bill is not to be framed on the broad

  143
  essentials that are to be found in the Local Government Bills of England and Scotland, that is another and a large question; but if the broad lines are to be taken, subject to the safeguards that I have mentioned, then, my Lords, I say that the Bill is reasonable and fair. Remember the safeguards that we have, remember what the honest and reason able position of a Bill like the present should be, and then I think your Lordships will see that it would be going entirely beyond the scope and object and purpose of the Bill to introduce this clause. It has been said that it makes no change in the principle of the Bill, but it makes a substantial change in the administration sought to be accomplished by the Bill. It is obvious from, the observations I made in Committee, and my observations now, that this is an Amendment that could receive no support from anyone in charge of a Bill, or interested in its welfare. I therefore trust that if there is a Division this Amendment will be defeated.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: We have got to the old reason, the reason of symmetry. The noble and learned Lord has said that this Bill is on the same lines as the English and Scotch Act. That does not make it better in my eyes, and even if it were, which I do not believe, a good thing for England and Scotland, the countries cannot be compared. I should like to ask my noble Friend who moves this Amendment whether I am right in saying that there is a limit of expenditure on the roads to 25 per cent.? That is so. Then the purport of his Amendment, is that the limit of 25 per cent. should extend to the other matters mentioned in the Amendment. I cannot see why, if in one case it is allowed, it should not be in the others. My feeling is, from what I know of poor law boards, that the less power you give them of spending money the better. They are most extravagant, and those cases that the noble Marquess gave us of poor law boards being superseded by boards of guardians are illustrations of this, and I wish he had added what the effect of the board of guardians was on the expenditure. One of the cases quoted, the New Ross case, is in my own county. There the expenditure was very much smaller under the board of guar-
  144
  dians, although the work was very much more efficiently done. The noble and learned Lord said that nobody suffered or gained except the occupier. If the noble Lord knew something about Ireland he would know that the occupier, that is the man above the lowest occupier, was very much alarmed about this Bill, and hates this Bill. In fact, perhaps, the noble and learned Lord does not know that nobody wants this Bill except the lowest of the low, and a few political adventurers, and so on, and, of course, the Government want it. It is the lowest voter who will have command over the whole of this machinery, because he will elect the county council and the district council. He has far larger powers and opportunities than the other class of voters; and those who have something really to lose are in a state of great alarm about what will happen to them. I hope the noble Lord will proceed to a Division, and in that case I shall be unlike the noble Lords who say they support the Amendment and cannot vote for it, because I support the Amendment and shall also vote for it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Contents 15; Not-Contents 36.

  CONTENTS.

  Rosse, E. [Teller]

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

  Bangor, V.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway)

  Castlemaine, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough)

  Harlech, L.

  Inchiquin, L. [Teller]

  Rosmead, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Massy, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury E. (L. Chancellor)

  Morley, E.

  Onslow E.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal)

  Selborne, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Hertford, M.

  Stanhope, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Salisbury, M.

  Camperdown, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Denbigh, E.

  Dudley, E.

  Amphill, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Bagot, L.

  145

  Balfour, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian)

  Belper, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Churchill, L. [Teller]

  Clinton, L.

  Lawrence L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall)

  Plunket, L.

  Harris, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Hood of Avalon, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington)

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl)

  Windsor, L.

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, line 5, after 'by,' insert 'an order of.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, line 7, leave out 'provision,' and insert 'provisions.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 22, line 16, leave out 'revision in,' and insert 'alteration of financial relations in Part Four of.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 36.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 24, line 12, leave out 'rural.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 42.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 27, line 43, at end, add—
  "(4) If two or more urban districts determine, by resolution passed by a majority of three-fourths of each council, to amalgamate
  146
  and to combine their respective districts into one united district, the Local Government Board for Ireland shall make an order for such amalgamation and union on such conditions and subject to such provisions as the Board may deem just and the councils may approve.
  "Should the council of such united district determine, by resolution to be carried by a like majority at a meeting of which seven days' notice at the least shall have been given to each member thereof, to have their district formed into a county borough, the Local Government Board shall, if the rateable value of such united district be not less than one hundred thousand pounds, and its population according to the next preceding census be not less than twenty-five thousand, make an order constituting the said district a county borough, subject to the provisions of this Act as to the adjustment of debts, property, and liabilities.
  "Any urban district council may, with the consent of the Local Government Board, and with the consent of the council, by a three-fourths majority of the district proposed to be annexed, extend their boundaries by annexing any adjoining district not included within the jurisdiction of any urban district council, subject to such conditions as the Board with the approval of said council may deem just."—(Viscount de Vesci.)
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI: The Amendment enables two or more urban, district councils to combine by resolution. I take the opportunity of moving this Amendment in consequence of a Report of a Commission appointed as long ago as 1880, when the Duke of Marlborough was Lord Lieutenant, to inquire into municipal boundaries. A portion of it relates to the townships outside Dublin, and my object in moving this Amendment is to secure that the Report and recommendations of that Commission shall be carried into effect now, and that these townships shall be saved the expense of the promotion of a private Bill for that purpose. It is mainly on account of these townships around Dublin that I put this Amendment down, and I hope that the Government may be inclined to accept it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This is a branch of one of the most serious and burning questions that can be suggested. I know myself that for generations there has been no more tremendous or more burning question than this of the townships and the city. This question was discussed several times in the House of Commons, but it wag laid down that this was a controversy that must stand over, and be fought out

  147
  on independent lines, and that it could not be grappled with in a paragraph of a Local Government Bill dealing with a general form of local government. It must be fought out between themselves. The city has its views, and the townships have their views. They are both rich and independent, and proud and courageous bodies, and whenever the fight takes place they must go for it resolutely, and with all the grandeur of a separate Bill for themselves.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI: Look at the expense!
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: They are rolling in money. It would be quite out of place to put this tremendous topic of the Dublin townships against the city, and the city against the townships, in a Bill like this. For these reasons I trust that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 45.
  "Amendment proposed—
  "Page 28, line 18, after 'county,' insert 'at large.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 47.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 30, line 2, after 'union,' insert 'urban.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 30, line 10, after the first 'union,' insert 'urban.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 49.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 19, at end, insert '(iii.) In respect of urban charges; and.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 26, after 'union and,' insert 'urban or.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 35, transpose clause 55 from page 38 so as to come in after clause 51."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 52.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 36, at end of line 27, add 'Provided, however, that the occupier shall not be entitled to make any deduction from his rent in respect of buildings, except so far as same are liable to rent.'"—(Earl of Arran.)
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: I really think that I should not move this Amendment again, because everything is met with such courtesy that I really feel quite shy in doing so, but I am bound to say that the explanation given does not seem to me to be perfectly satisfactory. The system at present in operation is that the poor rate is divided in most cases between the occupier and the owner, each paying half, and no deduction was made between that portion of the poor rate that applies to the land, and that portion which applies to the buildings on it. Therefore, although in many counties the poor rate was applied to the buildings, and was flowed and given by the Sub-Commis-

  149
  sioners to the tenant, yet, all the same, the landlord paid the rates—that is to say, he was paying poor rates on property not his. Under this Bill, that portion of the poor rate which applies to the buildings does not count, and therefore the landlord will be paying half the poor rate upon buildings which belong to the tenant. It seems to me to be perfectly clear that we have been paying for many years poor rates which we should not have paid, that ought to have been differentiated long ago, and I think that now is the time that the change ought to be made, when other changes are being made. If it is found impossible to alter the law on the subject, then it seems to me that the old system should be continued, and that the whole poor rates, or rather the landlord's portion of them, should be made to refer both to land and buildings in connection, with the agricultural grant. There will be enormous trouble in attempting to differentiate between what affects the buildings and the land, and it seems to me to be much more simple to leave the law as it now stands.
  LORD FARNHAM: I rise to say that in my opinion, unless this addition is made to this clause, a very grievous wrong will be inflicted on the landlords. I have a copy of the pink Schedule, in which no less than £1,100 is the value placed upon the buildings which have been admitted to be the property of the tenant. The tenant has the full enjoyment of that, and surely it is but justice that the tenant should pay the poor rate, and I hope your Lordships will see your way to adopt the Amendment proposed by my noble Friend, that the tenant shall pay the poor rate upon the property which is actually in his possession.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My noble Friend Lord Arran and my noble Friend who has just spoken have presented the case in a way that enables your Lordships to understand it, but it appears to me that it is an effort to make, in a Local Government Bill, a change which will entirely vary the incidence of the poor law in relation to deductions, and to take the opportunity afforded by this Bill to go entirely outside the scope and object of the Bill by moving a variation
  150
  in the incidence of the rate of deduction, which, would be entirely outside the scope of the Bill. We are, in this Bill, only dealing with local government, and we have nothing to do with any variation of the poor law about deductions, or in what respect such deductions are to be made. My noble Friend said they did not want to make any change, but they do, and the change they want to make is this: at present the tenant has a right to deduct half the poor rate in respect of his entire holding, no matter how composed, and what my noble Friend seeks to accomplish is this: that in future the deduction is to be confined absolutely to the land, and that the tenant is to have no right of deduction in respect of the buildings. Now, that may be a question of right or wrong, and it may be a question to be argued and decided, but it is a big question of rights between landlord and tenant—rights in reference to the poor law, and rights of deduction. But we are dealing in this Act with local government, and we are dealing with a readjustment of rent, in consequence of a payment to the landlord out of the agricultural grant, and how can we take that opportunity to vary the incidence of the change, and regulate the rate of deduction with respect to the poor rate, to the benefit of the landlord and to the disadvantage to the tenant? To me it seems to be a matter of seeking to make a grave and serious change in the law which, whenever it is proposed to be made, must be considered upon its own merits.
  LORD VENTRY: It does seem to me that the case hardly stands exactly as the noble and learned Lord has put it. It appears to me that a certain change is being made by the Bill in the incidence of the poor rate, and it also makes certain abatements in the rents paid by the tenant as a matter of adjustment. Well, now, it does seem to me that we are not travelling very much further in modifying that adjustment, so far as not to give the tenant any deduction on the rent he has to pay to the extent of the rate on those buildings which have been declared by the Land Commission to be his property. I may also, add that it seems to me this Amendment need

  151
  not be extended to all tenancies, and Deed only apply to tenancies where the rents have been fixed by the Land Commission, and where a particular rent has been put, or has not been put, upon the buildings. In other cases, where the rents have been fixed out of court, by judicial agreement, or where there has been no judicial agreement, in those cases no such interference is necessary, because it is a matter of give and take between landlord and tenant, and it may be assumed that these matters have adjusted themselves, but in this particular case you have the fact that these buildings have, or have not, rent put upon them. Again, there is already a precedent under the poor law, the case of leases where a small rent—a small ground rent—is paid, and in that case half the poor rate is not allowed. The poor rate is calculated on the ground rent, and up to the half it is allowed. But in 99 cases out of every 100 the allowance would be very much less than half.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: At the same time there would be no difficulty in making it all come under the agricultural grant.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the Amendment were to be limited, as suggested, your Lordships would be still very ill-advised to accept it. I would ask the House to keep very distinctly before itself what the object of this Bill is. The object of this Bill is to relieve the landlords of that part of the poor rate which has hitherto fallen upon them in respect of agricultural land. In the case of agricultural land, the State finds in the new agricultural grant the equivalent of the rate which the tenant ceases to pay, and his rent is consequently reduced by a proportionate amount. But when you come to non-agricultural land, or to buildings, the State does not find any money at all, and the tenant, as the noble Lord knows, under the Bill, is liable for the whole of the poor rate. It is, then, clearly necessary to do something in order to replace the tenant in that position, or in the same relative position as that in which he stood before, and with that object the Bill proposes that the tenant's rent should be reduced by the amount of the poor rate which,
  152
  under the new arrangement, is thrown upon him. That, I venture to suggest, is a perfectly fair and intelligible arrangement. The noble Lord, Lord Arran, proposes that we should take advantage of this opportunity in order to radically alter the law with regard to the incidence of the poor rate. What he proposes is that, in the case, not of all buildings, but of a particular class of buildings, an entirely new liability, which does not now fall upon the tenant, should be thrown upon him for the first time. The noble Lord says, in effect, to the tenant, "These buildings are your property; you must pay the rates, and you must make no deduction from your rent." Now, that is an absolute innovation and an absolute novelty. Our object is to leave the parties where they are now in respect to any rates payable on non-agricultural holdings. With that object we seek to increase the tenant's rent by the amount of rate which the State provides, and we decrease his rent by the amount which is transferred from the landlord to the tenant. That seems to me to be a fair arrangement, and I think that the noble and learned Lord who has charge of the Bill ought not to take advantage of this opportunity in order to throw a brand-new liability on the tenant for a portion of the poor rate which he has not paid before.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: The section provides—
  "That sum may be raised by means of the poor rate, but as a separate item thereof, and any right to deduct any part of the said rate from rent shall continue as respects that item."
  It seems to me that that non-agricultural land goes with the buildings, and he has no right to deduct the rate.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 36, line 41, leave out sub-section (8)."—(Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD INCHIQUIN: The noble and learned Lord said that he wished to save law expenses, and I am sure there is nobody who is more anxious to save

  153
  law expenses than I am. I think, however, that leaving these matters in the hands of the commissioner of valuation will be exceedingly unwise, because very important questions have to be decided in reference to these matters. It is far more desirable that the parties should be left to their usual remedy before the usual courts than that the commissioner of valuation should be allowed to settle these matters. It is a question that does affect lawyers, and men who understand these matters in law much more than I do, but from what I have been told the matter is not one of very great importance. I understand that the noble and learned Lord said the other day that he would consider this matter, and I would ask him now whether he will accept it or not?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think it would be deplorable to accept this Amendment. This subsection provides that if any dispute arises as to the amount to be deducted or paid by occupiers under existing tenancies it shall be settled by the commissioner of valuation. Well, there may be many disputes, some of them limited to a couple of shillings, and why these unfortunate people should be left to these magnificent tribunals, for which I have an infinite respect, to decide these petty points, which might from time to time arise, I cannot understand. It might be a millennium for lawyers, but it would be a catastrophe to those who have to pay them. I think, therefore, that the provision in the Bill is as wise and as good as could be suggested. There may be some wide difference of opinion as to the amount to be deducted, but it is wise, I think, to set up some tribunal to decide these small matters, and not leave these poor people to the arbitrament of the law.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 37, line 14, after 'council,' insert 'including the town clerk of a county borough.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 37, line 42, leave out 'the fair rent for a holding,' and insert 'a fair rent in a rural district.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 38, line 5, leave out from 'poor rate' to the end of the clause, and insert 'and where the Land Commission after the appointed day fix a fair rent for a holding, they shall record in the schedule specified in section one of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, the standard amount as defined in the preceding section, both for poor rate and county cess, and the benefit in respect of the holding deemed to have been received by the landlord and tenant respectively out of the agricultural grant.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This Amendment is one which I accepted from the Earl of Arran, and it merely puts the clause into proper form, or drafting language.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 39, line 26, leave out 'light.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 41, line 37, leave out 'two counties,' and insert 'more counties than one.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 43, line 26, after 'loan,' insert 'raised.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 43, lines 27 and 28, leave out 'relating to the relief of the poor,' and insert 'above in this section mentioned.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 44, line 36, after 'borough,' insert 'or urban district council.'"—(Viscount de Vesci.)
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 45, line 6, leave out 'took place,' and insert 'came into force.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 45, line 15, after 'are a,' insert 'within the meaning of the Dublin Port and Docks Board and Bridges Act, 1876.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 45, line 17, leave out 'appeal,' and insert 'revision of the apportionment."'—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 46, line 28, leave out 'either by a separate rate or.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 46, line 29, after 'charge,' insert 'but a council, in lieu of raising the amount required to meet the same by means of the poor rate, may, if they think fit, raise it by levying a separate rate.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 48, after clause 66, insert the following clause—
  "The duties payable by pawnbrokers under section sixty-six of the Dublin Police Magistrates Act, 1808, and the Act therein mentioned, in any part of the police district of Dublin metropolis, shall be payable to and be

  157
  collected by the council of the borough or county district where the place of business of the pawnbroker, in respect of which the duties are paid, is situate, and the amount so received by such council shall be applied in aid of their expenses in the execution of this Act, and the receiver mentioned in the said section shall cease to have any concern with the said duties."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: This new clause has been put down in redemption of the pledge which I gave the other night, and it is consequential upon what follows. My noble Friend used the reference which was contained in one of the schedules as to the payment of pawnbrokers' licences, and he was challenged by my noble Friend, who said that it was not in a proper place, that it was not intelligible as to its operation, and very difficult to apply. But his object is said to be met, and I think is met, by what I have proposed here, for it enables the duties that are payable by pawnbrokers practically to be distributed in aid of the expenses, and the benefit to be given to the various councils in the counties where the parties reside who pay them.
  Question put—
  "That this clause be read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause be added to the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 52, line 1, leave out the first 'the,' and insert 'those.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 52, line 3, after 'Acts,' insert '1871 to 1894.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 55, line 14, leave out 'general.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 58, line 26, after 'surveyor,' insert 'or surveyors.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 59, line 39, leave out from 'council' to the end of line 42."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 61, after clause 85, insert as a new clause—
  "An officer holding a pensionable office, whether the superannuation allowance is payable out of the poor rate, or any town rate, or other local rate, shall not be disqualified for receiving such an allowance by reason only of his having acted, whether before or after the passing of this Act, as an officer of a school attendance committee under the Irish Education Act, 1892."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But there are limits to everything. The words "an officer holding a pensionable office" mean that it entitles the holder to superannuation, but it does not mean that the office carries with it a pension.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I do not quite comprehend the point which has been raised.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It is the officer, and not the office, who is entitled to the pension. It does not read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think it reads myself.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: There is no accounting for taste.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I do not say it is classical, but it reads.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: It is very bad English.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: We are accustomed to that.
  Question put—
  "That this clause be read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause be added to the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 7, leave out from 'against' to 'any,' in line 8."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 63, line 12, leave out 'tramway.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 63, line 21, leave out clause 91, and insert as a new clause."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Section thirty-eight of the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860, shall have effect as if the words 'of not less than two-thirds' were omitted therefrom."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put—
  "That the clause be read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause be added to the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 64, line 1, after 'in,' insert 'tile council of,' and leave out 'council.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, lines 12 and 13, leave out 'ordinary day of retirement of the mayor,' and insert 'twenty-third day of February."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, line 14, leave out 'section,' and insert 'sections three and.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, line 15, after '1876,' insert 'and the day next before the day of the said quarterly meeting shall be substituted for the thirtieth day of November, in section five of the said Act.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, line 16, after 'or,' insert 'other.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 66, line 6, at end, insert as a new sub-section—
  "Every such chairman who is, by virtue of this Act, a justice of the peace shall, notwithstanding anything in the other provisions of this Act, be subject to the same restrictions, disqualifications, and power of removal as any other justice of the peace."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 66, line 11, after 'secretary,' insert 'or clerk.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 66, line 29, after 'made,' insert 'in like manner.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 67, after line 11, insert as a new sub-section—
  "In an electoral division comprised in a parliamentary borough in which the freeholders vote for the parliamentary county, and not for the parliamentary borough, the names of the freeholders, that is to say, the persons entitled in respect of a freehold, leasehold, or copyhold qualification within the parliamentary borough, shall be entered in a separate list, and that list shall form part of the local government supplement in the said division; but nothing in this enactment shall alter the right of such freeholders to vote for the parliamentary county, or confer on them a right to vote for the parliamentary borough."—(The Marquess of Abercorn.)
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERCORN: The object of my Amendment is to prevent freeholders and leaseholders from being in boroughs disqualified from voting in the Parliamentary borough in which they lire. This new sub-section asks that they may be placed in a separate list, and that that list shall form part of the local government supplement in that division. It will not touch the Parliamentary franchise in any sense, but it merely gives them the power of using the privilege of voting which they have hitherto enjoyed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I think some such sub-section is necessary to meet the position of things in Londonderry and Belfast, and if there was not an Amendment of this kind inserted I am not sure that the persons referred to would have any right at all to vote.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 74, line 8, leave out 'town and township commissioners,' and insert 'commissioners of a town.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 76, line 30, at end of line, insert as a separate paragraph—
  "The expression 'high constable or collector of a barony,' includes a collector for a district of a barony appointed under the County Cess (Ireland) Act, 1848."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 76, line 36, leave out 'for,' and insert 'in respect of.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 77, line 22, after 'district,' insert 'division.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 78, line 15, at end of line, insert as a separate paragraph—
  "The expression 'Medical Charities Acts,' means the Acts so defined by the Dispensary Houses (Ireland) Act, 1879, and includes the last-mentioned Act."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 18, leave out 'one councillor,' and insert 'two councillors.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 33, leave out 'and township.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 36, after 'district,' insert 'and of commissioners of each town.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 2, leave out 'borough,' and insert 'of a city or town.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 82, line 5, after 'Act,' insert 'and the rules made thereunder.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 2, after 'then,' insert 'or any time thereafter during the period of three years immediately following the said last five days of March.'"—(Viscount de Vesci.)
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I propose to insert three years instead of five, and my object is to extend the time for county secretaries to any time during three years. I ought to mention that I propose to insert in my Amendment, after the word "thereafter," the words "with the consent of the county council." The object of this is to enable them to come to an agreement between the county council and the grand jury secretaries. The object of my Amendment is for the sake of due efficiency and economy in the management of the affairs of the county councils, and to secure a continuity of the business carried on by the grand juries now. As the matter stands now the county councils will be elected in March, 1899, and come into operation in July, 1899, and the county secretaries are required to come to a decision by March, 1900. As a matter of fact, there will not be a full year's sitting, and I think I can say that the accounts will not be presented for audit by the present county secretaries. We are bound to assume that there may be a great change in the governing bodies of these councils, and I should be very sorry indeed for the chairmen or the finance
  166
  committee of the councils which had to settle that business without the skilled assistance of the present secretaries to the grand juries. I think it is reasonable to suppose that almost every secretary of the grand juries in Ireland will probably take advantage of the proposals in the Bill, and the confusion ensuing can hardly be imagined. In order to enable these new county boards to have the advantage, the advice, and the assistance of these expert officers, I move the addition of these words.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: It is a perfectly wise proposal to make a provision that the new bodies should have the assistance and knowledge and experience of the secretaries to the grand juries. That everyone is agreed upon. But it is not, I think, desirable that the secretaries to the grand juries should be allowed too long a time to remain in a state of indecision as to whether they will take on with the new authorities or not. The Bill says that they shall have until the end of March, 1900. That is practically a year after the Bill comes into operation. The first election is to be in March next year, and to give them until March, 1900, practically gives them 12 months to consider whether they will go and take those terms, and take on their new employment.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI: But I do not think that the new councils will sit until late in the year.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I do not think that it would be reasonable, or that it would work well, to leave these officers in a state of indefinite uncertainty as to what they are doing to decide for such a long period as two or three years. Now, if my noble Friend would, instead of March, 1900, take September, 1900, that would leave a year and a half, and that would be another thing. I am told that the officers in question are not in favour of that period, and that they want either a long time, or else that the Bill stand as it is. Now, we do not see our way to make such a change as to leave them in this uncertain position for three years, and it is better for them to make up their

  167
  minds within a reasonable time whether they will be off with the old love and on with the new. If your Lordships do not think there would be any objection to extending it six months, that would be more acceptable.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI: The new words I have suggested would enable them to come to an arrangement with the county council as to whether they can stay on. Under the circumstances, I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, after line 22, add as a new subsection—
  "Where any existing secretary to a grand jury resigns or is removed from his office under the provisions of this Act, without the concurrence of the Local Government Board, and is entitled to any retiring allowance under this Act, he shall, if he so elects, in lieu of such allowance, be entitled to receive a gratuity from the county council. Such gratuity shall be according to the scale in Part I. of the Seventh Schedule to this Act, save that it may be granted to an amount not exceeding seven years' net emoluments."—(Viscount de Vesci.)
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I have been asked to move this because it is thought it would be more advantageous that they should have that option, and it would be economy on the part of the county council, because they would have to pay them on the lower scale.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I may say that it is not the view of those who have applied their mind to the question. I have no feeling either way, nor have I any special knowledge, but I am told that the position of these officers is this: that under the existing laws they have no right to pensions, and they are given them under this clause; and, more than that, there is a provision, I think, at the end of clause 115 in the last sub-section that saves any superannuation given from being made available to their creditors. Everything is done in a considerate way to safeguard their position, but I do not think it would be reasonable to go further, and permit such a course of giving gratuities as suggested in this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI: Then I will withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 27, after 'remuneration, insert 'allowance or compensation.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERCORN: Who are the medical officers excepted by this proposal?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: Your Lordships may remember that my noble Friend, including the noble Duke, took a very great interest in the Irish medical poor law officers, and he felt very nervous and apprehensive at words being introduced which indicated plainly that it was necessary for anyone, to get the benefit of the section, to be an officer who gave up the whole of his time. I am told that a legal opinion has been given by a very high official, and I quite approve of your Lordships' anxiety at seeing those words in the clause. It is to meet that case that this Amendment has been accepted.
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 84, line 12, after 'officer,' insert 'who can be employed under the scheme.""—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 85, line 5, after 'of,' insert 'or for the purposes of.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 85, lines 30 and 31, leave out 'their existing officers as to,' and insert 'such existing officers respecting.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 87, line 28, after 'and,' insert 'except as respects a medical officer to whom the Medical Officers' Superannuation Act (Ireland), 1869, applies.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 88, line 12, leave out from 'under,' to 'in,' in line 14, and insert 'a scheme made in pursuance of this part of this Act.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  SCHEDULE 1.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 91, line 7, leave out from beginning of line to the end of line 12."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 91, line 15, after 'forty,' insert 'so far as unrepealed.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the first schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  SCHEDULE 2.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 93, line 20, after 'Galway,' insert 'Kingstown.'"—(Viscount de Vesci.)
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I can only repeat what I have said before, and remind your Lordships of what a prosperous place Kingstown is. I will contrast it with other boroughs as to population and rateable value. Limerick has a population of 37,000, whilst Water-ford has 27,000, and Kingstown a population of 17,500. Now, the rateable value of Limerick is £69,000, that of Waterford £53,000, whilst the rateable value of Kingstown is £78,000. I think that proves very clearly that Kingstown is far more prosperous than either Limerick or Waterford. It is a rising town, and, as the noble and learned Lord knows quite well, Kingstown, is a town which is likely to improve. And, in the probable event of Blackrock and Dalkey being added, the population of Kingstown would rise to 31,000, and the valuation to £140,000. Therefore, I think it is a matter that might surely be conceded by the Government at this stage of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I have the greatest possible respect for Kingstown, which is a most attractive place, and many of the attractions are associated with the name of the noble Lord himself. But the Government could never look in the face the members of the ancient communities they have been so ruthlessly put aside, if they listened to a proposal to include a town which, although it was now an

  171
  exceedingly pleasant place, was known as Dunleary at the beginning of the century. It must depend upon legislation introduced independently for itself, when other interests can be considered. The matter has been gone into thoroughly since the incident occurred in reference to Galway the other evening, and I believe there are very considerable difficulties in reference to all these suggested changes.
  VISCOUNT DE VESCI: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  SCHEDULE 3.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 94, line 15, after 'pawnbrokers,' leave out 'except the duty of £100 per annum paid by pawnbrokers in the Dublin Metropolitan Police area, which shall be paid to the Cor-

  SCHEDULE 6.
  Amendment proposed—"Page 97, line 7, at end insert—

  3 & 4 Will. 4 c. 37

  …

  An Act to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the church in Ireland

  Section seventy-two.

  3 & 4 Will. 4 c. 78

  …

  The Grand Juries (Ireland) Act, 1833

  Section seventy - four, from "Provided always" to the end of the section.—(Lord Ashbourne.)

  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 98, line 11, leave out 'section fifty-eight.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  poration of the City of Dublin.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the third schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  SCHEDULE 5.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 96, line 45, at end, insert as a fresh paragraph, 'the Tramways (Ireland) Acts, 1860 to 1896.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the fifth schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 99, line 4, after 'to,' insert 'received to any.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 100, line 55, leave out 'section fifty-nine.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 101, line 34, at the end of the line insert—

  11 & 12 Vict. c. 69

  …

  The Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1848

  Section two, from "Provided always that" to the end of the section.

  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.

  16 & 17 Vict. c. 38

  …

  The Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1853

  Section one, from "Provided always that" to the end of the section.

  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 103, line 21, leave out 'thirty-one,' and insert 'thirty.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)

  39 & 40 Vict. c. 76

  …

  The Municipal Privilege Act, Ireland 1876

  Section four, from "the Council of the city of Kilkenny" to "County of the town of Drogheda."

  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 107, line 31, leave out from 'seventy-nine from,' in line 31, to 'and,' in line 33, and insert 'that no deduction on account of,' down to 'provided also.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 107, line 40, leave out from 'same property' to 'lessor,' in line 44, both inclusive, and insert 'from the rent paid by him.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 108, line 41, leave out from 'eleven' to the end of line 45."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 101, line 38, at the end of the line insert—
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 105, line 42, at end insert—
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 109, line 36, after 'eleven,' insert the words 'not being more than sixty years and.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 112, lines 7 and 8, leave out 'and from upon oath' to 'administer.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 112, line 25, leave out 'section forty-five.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 112, line 37, after 'thirty-six,' insert 'and in section thirty-eight the words 'not less than two-thirds of.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 112, line 42, leave out from 'nineteen' to 'and,' in line 46."—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 114, lines 9 to 11, leave out in section eight the words 'declared by such order to be.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Question put.
  Amendment agreed to.
  "Motion made, and Question put—
  "That the sixth schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That this Bill be reported, as amended, to the House."
  Agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: If it suits the convenience of your Lordships, I propose to take the Third Reading of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill to-morrow.

  VAGRANCY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Committee Stage.)
  LORD BELPER: I move—
  "That the House now resolve itself into Committee upon the Vagrancy Act Amendment Bill."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  No Amendments being proposed,
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That this Bill, without Amendments, be reported to the House."
  Agreed to.

  IRISH LAND ACTS.
  Motion made—
  "To move to resolve that the Report of the Fry Commission having condemned a large portion of the procedure heretofore adopted under the Irish Land Acts, it is desirable that immediate steps should be taken to give a fair trial to the reforms and alternative procedure recommended by that Commission."—(Marquess of Abercorn.)
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERCORN: My Lords, in bringing the Motion standing in my name, I must express regret for bringing this matter, at so late a period in the Session, before your Lordships' House, but the question is a very momentous one, and affects hundreds and thousands of people in Ireland—not only landlords, but tenants also, for the tenants are equally complaining with the other class at the inequality, expense, and injustice of the present proceedings of the Land Commission Courts. Now, my Lords, the Report of the Fry Commission was issued in February last, and since that time we have been waiting for some expression from the Government with regard to this Report, whether they would endeavour to carry out the suggestions and recommendations contained in it; but their utterances have been of small moment, and of no specific character, until the question was raised in the House of Commons on the 15th inst., by Colonel Saunderson. In his speech on that occasion the Chief Secretary for Ireland quoted passages to prove that the Fry Commission had acquitted the Land Commissioners of deliberate bias or unfairness in the fixing of rents, but we made no such charge against them in presenting our case before the Commission. He also referred to other passages in the Report in terms which convey the impression that he regarded them as a

  177
  finding by the Commission that rents had not, as a rule, been excessively reduced. We think, my Lords, that these passages bear no such construction. They really only convey that on this large question the Commission had not been able to arrive at any general conclusion. We are not surprised at this, for they admit that they only visited 10 farms in all Ireland, of which five were small holdings in the congested districts. None of these farms were selected by us as instances of our complaints; we do not know where most of them were, nor whether the landlords of them regarded the reductions which had been made as excessive, except in one case. These points, however, are, perhaps, details which could be more properly dealt with in a longer Debate than we anticipate on the present occasion. Our chief object now is to press upon the Government our view that, although there may be a few passages in the Report of the Corn-mission which may seem to some minds not entirely in our favour, we say, without hesitation, that, as a whole, the Report strongly and unanimously bears out the truth of our complaints, and makes recommendations calculated, in the opinion of the Commissioners, to put matters on a better footing. The Irish landlords accordingly urge that these recommendations should have a fair trial. They went to great expense in collecting evidence and employing counsel. They had always been calling for such an inquiry. If it had turned out that their complaints were unfounded, their position would have been very serious and humiliating. They took the risk of all this. They submitted their case to a mixed tribunal, presided over by a brilliant and impartial lawyer and publicist, whose opinions command universal respect. As regards previously expressed sympathies with either landlord or tenant, the Commission was fairly representative. The result of their most laborious inquiry has been a most remarkable document, signed by every one of them, which shows that, in addition to the flagrant wrong inflicted on the Irish landowner by depriving him of the control of his property, the administration of the Acts has been of the character complained of by the Irish landlords. The fact is that the charges made over
  178
  and over again, in this House and elsewhere, have been proved home. As I have said, we never alleged personal corruption against the Land Commission or its officials, and we did not make any such charge before the Commission. The answer that is now attempted to be made to us is this—
  "The Commissioners are proved to have been acting bonâ fide, and therefore you have nothing to complain of."
  This answer is founded on sentences in the Report, of which the following is one, and your Lordships will see it on page 26 of the Eeport—
  "But we are also convinced that the administration of justice has not been poisoned by any systematic endeavour on the part of the Commissioners, or of the Assistant Commissioners to benefit either side at the expense of the other."
  But this answer is clearly answered by the first part of the same sentence, which is as follows—
  "The settlement of fair rents has been effected in an unsatisfactory manner—with diversity of opinion and practice, sometimes with carelessness, and sometimes with that bias towards one side or the other which exists in many honest minds."
  The Commissioners admit that, in their opinion, the settlement has been effected in an unsatisfactory manner, and we have proved that these great changes involved ruinous loss on hundreds, and have been made on no principle whatever; that every sub-commission "was a law unto itself," and "has done what was right in its own eyes." The landowners also proved that the appeal to the Chief Commissioners was little better than a farce, inasmuch as the court to hear appeals from sub-commissioners was merely registering the valuation of other sub-commissioners—called court valuers—whose valuations were not liable to be tested in any way in the superior courts. As regards this question, we simply ask that the Land Commission should give a trial to the form of procedure which has been recommended by the Fry Commission. The subject is technical, but, fortunately, the Commission included two gentlemen whose professional opinions on such a question, are of the highest value, and

  179
  they say, inter alia, that, as tests of the correctness of the first valuation, the appeal valuers should proceed as follows—

  "(1) They should not be furnished with the pink schedule, but should be furnished with a map and description of the property; and

  "(2) They should not know the findings of the Court below."

  Now, we challenge the Land Commission to try this system, and we do so because we hear it said that if they did try it the discrepancies and differences in many cases between the two sets of valuations would be most extraordinary, and would totally discredit the whole procedure, by showing that it is, as we have always alleged, merely a farce. But if it is really a farce, we ask, are the Land Commission entitled to refuse to allow its true character to be exposed and proved, and are we to continue to suffer by their refusal? I need not, my Lords, recapitulate the other numerous abuses of which the Irish landlord has been the victim. The Report of the Commission sets them forth in an authoritative way that cannot be challenged. Public attention has at last been, called to the subject, and I am convinced that it is incumbent upon the Government to give effect to the Report at the earliest possible moment. No matter what devices are resorted to in order to minimise the effect of this Report, no reasonable man can form any other opinion than this, that Sir Edward Fry and his brother commissioners, after thoroughly mastering the subject, arrived at the conclusion that the administration of the Acts had been most unsatisfactory from beginning to end. But it may be asked: how are these recommendations to be carried into effect? We all quite recognise that it is impossible to go back on the land legislation of past years. The right of having rents fixed by an outside tribunal, the right of fixity of tenure, and the right of free sale are now secured to the tenant, and are unassailable; but what we demand is, that in securing such rights for the tenants, some regard should be had to the rights of the landlords also. For you must remember that it is at their expense you have conferred all these benefits on the tenants, without a shilling of compensation to the land-
  180
  lord. Effect can be given to these recommendations in nine cases out of 10 by the Land Commission framing rules, and without any fresh legislation on this subject. I am very glad to observe that the Land Commission have already, in their rules, adopted some of the suggestions of the Commission, and I hope that in the interests of justice they will adopt many more. But rules will not give effect to all the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I quite acknowledge the great trouble taken by the Chief Secretary in selecting sub-commissioners, but I think that they ought to be obliged to pass an examination in the subjects with which they have to deal, as recommended by the Royal Commission. I am convinced that if such a Commission existed in England, the examination for sub-commissioners to apply the Act would be a very crucial one in this country. Some of the recommendations can only be carried into effect by legislation. On that, for the present, I do not wish to speak. It is a delicate subject to touch on, as the Irish landowner has almost been legislated out of existence. The Royal Commissioners were unable to deal with the notorious 40th section of the Act of 1896. The great argument in the Court of Appeal was then pending. I feel certain, if they had known the result, the Commissioners would have suggested the repeal of that section. I think nearly everybody in this House understood the section in the sense put upon it by the dissentient judges.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: No, no! I do not agree, and I am a lawyer.
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERCORN: Well, lawyers are not infallible. If my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had expounded it as he afterwards did in the Court of Appeal, the section would have been struck out of the Bill by this House without hesitation. I do not think it just that what was passed under a mistake should be allowed to remain on the Statute Book. I also consider the recommendations of the Fry Commission on the subject of purchase of great weight. Your legislation in Ireland has reduced the Irish Land Laws to such a state that purchase is the only

  181
  remedy. You owe it to those whose property the State has diminished or destroyed, that the State should go very far in providing remedies, or some remedy, at any rate. I have, my Lords, only spoken of the matters dealt with in the Report in a general way. I have not gone into specific particulars. Other speakers will probably deal with these points, but I venture to hope that what I have said has satisfied this House that such a report calls for the earliest possible attention. I understand that in his speech in the House of Commons the Chief Secretary for Ireland promised that the recommendations of the Commission would have his careful attention during the Recess. I have heard this with great satisfaction, and I willingly admit that the calls on the right honourable Gentleman's time during the present Session were such as to make it, perhaps, difficult for him to undertake additional work; but, my Lords, I am bound to remember, also, that the maladministration which the Report discloses is ruining thousands of Irish landowners, and I feel sure that this fact will appear to your Lordships to justify my urging that such action as the Government may be able to take should be taken without any unnecessary delay. But, my Lords, while urging this, I must also say that these reforms can never compensate the Irish landlords for the injuries inflicted on them by this legislation. I, therefore, earnestly trust that next Session will see a serious effort on the part of the Government to give us some of those measures of compensation or relief which have been so often promised to us, especially as regards tithe-rent charge, and other State charges in Ireland. These, I know, my Lords, are very difficult and intricate matters, but they are subjects very dear at heart to the Irish landowners, and if the Government during the Recess would undertake to legislate next Session on some of these points, I am sure that they would meet with the universal approval, not only of the landowning class in Ireland, but also of the tenant farmers as well.
  LORD FARNHAM: Bearing in mind, as I do, the short time that has taken place since I took my seat in your Lord-
  182
  ships' House, I rise with considerable diffidence to address you in this Debate, and I should not have done so were it not for my sense of the vital importance of this question, and also to the fact that we are quite alive to the fact that the opportunities which are given to land lords to vindicate their position, and express their feelings before the Government, are few and far between. I therefore crave your Lordships' indulgence while I endeavour to point out to you a few of the many causes for which we have every reason to express our dissatisfaction with the mode of the sub-commissioners, and the manner in which our criticisms from time to time have been borne out by the findings of the Fry Commission. My Lords, there is one thing, I think, that we may take as fairly established, and that is that the action of the Commissioners has pleased no one. The landlords are certainly not satisfied with them, and the tenants have no confidence in them. In the recent Debate in another place, I was struck by the unanimity with which Members representing the tenants' interest spoke with little confidence of the sub-commissioners, and the manner in which they performed their duties. It is true that they spoke of the sub-commissioners as being packed in favour of the landlords. It is true that they said that they were terrorised into not reducing the rents enough by fear of, what I do not exactly accept, their action being criticised in public. Well, it has been pronounced to be unsatisfactory by the Fry Commission, which was appointed to inquire into it. Now they say that the Commission is suspected by the landlords of reducing rents—of unfairly reducing rents—in favour of the tenants, and that it is suspected by the tenants of not reducing them enough, and that on all sides its action is not free from suspicion. They regret that this suspicion exists. It is our contention that a tribunal such as this should be raised far above the suggestion of any criticism, and it should be one in which all parties should have perfect confidence. It is a remarkable thing, and I think it shows in very strong characters the perseverance of the present Members of the Front Benches in both Houses of Parliament, that 12 years ago they prophesied

  183
  exactly what has come about as the result of the legislation of the year 1881. We were told then that the Sub-Commissioners would not be such as to command respect. We were told that they should be men of judicial training, and that, under that Bill, litigation would be incessant, universal, and lead to angry feelings. In fact, if we were to go through those speeches of the members of the then Opposition, we should find that their prophecies have been fulfilled to a very remarkable extent. We are told also, my Lords, by the head Commissioners themselves that the Commission is not as satisfactory as it should be. Even they admit that, in many points, it is capable of improvement. Commissioner FitzGerald, in his evidence, said—
  "I do not know what other qualifications we could have prescribed, except the qualification of being competent surveyors."
  But surely there are many qualifications in valuing land which should go hand-in-hand with a thorough knowledge of the value of land, besides that of being a competent surveyor. Mr. Commissioner FitzGerald goes on to say that he does not think such a staff would have been procurable. In another part of his evidence he states—
  "I quite acknowledge that if you could get men who, in addition to being good surveyors, were also good valuers, it would be best; but you cannot get a sufficient number of men so qualified."
  And, again—
  "I think it is desirable that everyone should be permanent, but in this case it is absolutely impracticable and impossible."
  Now, Commissioner O'Brien disagrees with this. He says, in the first place—
  "The duty of defining the qualifications of assistant commissioners is distinctly placed upon the Land Commission, but they have practically prescribed no qualification—practical acquaintance with the value of land is a very vague qualification."
  In another place he says—
  "If it did not suit the Treasury to appoint them for a long period, I think they should, at all events, be given a reasonable tenure of their office. I would recommend that they
  184
  should have a tenure of office of at least six or seven years."
  That is a very different treatment from the treatment which the Assistant Commissioners receive now. They are often paid by the year, and sometimes only by the day. He goes on to say—
  "I do not think there would be any difficulty whatever in obtaining a sufficient supply of competent men. I do not agree with the evidence of Mr. Commissioner FitzGerald at all. In my opinion, there are numbers of men who are practically acquainted with the value of land in Ireland, and who also have a competent knowledge of surveying."
  Our contention is that, in cases like this, where hundreds of millions of property have been transferred from the owners to the occupier, we have a right to assume that the tribunal shall be one of the most competent, with the highest qualifications which are procurable in the country. I should like to touch upon one point which I omitted in an earlier part of my remarks, and that is the point in which those who represent the feelings of the tenants have brought an accusation against the Sub-Commissioners which we, as landlords, would never have thought of bringing forward, and it is a very remarkable one. It is this: that the appointment of the Fry Commission and their investigations have had an appreciable effect upon the Sub-Commissioners, and have restrained them from reducing rents to the extent that they had previously done. That is a very grave accusation indeed. It was made in the House of Commons by Serjeant Hemphill. He is reported as saying that—
  "He believed that the Sub-Commissioners were honourable men, who tried to do their duty, but they could not help feeling that at any time they might be dismissed from their office. Since the Commission had reported, the reductions of rent had suddenly ceased, and he could not help connecting the two things."
  Before the Fry Commission Mr. Harrington said—
  "There is a strong impression among the tenantry of Ireland that the Sub-Commissioners can be influenced by the court procedure here, or by questions proved here, to alter their practice, and so alter it as to prevent them from discharging their duty—a duty which we call upon them to discharge impartially towards the tenants and landlords alike."

  185
  Sir E. Fry said—
  "Surely that is a very grave charge to make against the Sub-Commissioners; they are not to be frightened by the mere putting of questions to them while before this Commission. That is the gravest charge I have yet heard against them."
  If that is true, if that is the fact that, upon the first breath of public examination, upon the first glimmer of the searchlight of public investigation, the Sub-Commissioners have altered their procedure and have altered the rate at which they are reducing the rents, I say that that, and that alone, is sufficient to prove that they are an incompetent tribunal, and one in which we can have no confidence. When we are discussing the question of the probability of providing a sufficient number of competent men, I should like to point out to your Lordships one way in which, if it had been adopted from the beginning, so large a number of men would not have been required, and had those men been more competent they would have had less to do. The State, in its wisdom, decreed that the right of free contract was no longer to exist between occupiers and owners in Ireland. The State took upon itself the task of fixing fair rents between them, and, having done so, and accepted that great responsibility which then devolved upon the State, I maintain that the State should spare neither pains nor money in order to make the tribunal which they have appointed for the purpose as efficient as possible. But will it be believed that the State, having taken that great responsibility upon itself, having appointed a special tribunal for the express purpose of fixing fair rents, from that day to this no single individual can tell you what is meant by "fair rent"? It is a phrase which conveys no meaning, and you can find no meaning attaching to it, if you endeavour to inquire into it. Speaking on this subject in the Lower House, the Chief Secretary said—
  "No rent can be fixed that both landlord and tenant would agree upon as fair."
  That remark I thoroughly endorse. It would be indeed a new departure in the history of litigation if a tribunal could be established under which, after verdict
  186
  or judgment had been given, both parties would come away equally satisfied. That is not the point in this case. It is not the establishing of the rent which will satisfy all parties after it has been fixed, but it is the establishing of such principles of fixing that rent that, when the landlords and tenants come into court, they shall know on what general principles and under what rules they are going to be judged. In the pink schedule, a copy of which I have in my hand, we find minute particulars on the right-hand side giving the deductions to be made for buildings, fences, and other improvements made by the tenant, but on the left-hand side, where the gross rent from which those reductions are to be made is laid down, no particulars are given, excepting merely what the Sub-Commissioner's opinion is as to the value per acre of the land. It does not say how he arrives at that opinion. It does not say what is the gross productive area of the land, what proportion should be given to the landlord. It does not say what the actual definition of fair rent is; and what we claim, my Lords, is that, when we are presented with this carven image in the shape of a fair fixed rent, we shall know more particularly what the original block was from which that image was hewed—what were its dimensions, and how those dimensions were arrived at. We maintain that a clear and accurate definition of what is meant by a fair rent should have been laid down and publicly made known; and the process by which that rent was to be arrived at, and the factors that were to be taken into consideration in giving it, should have been embodied in a carefully drawn code of instructions for the guidance of the Sub-Commissioners and the information of the public. If that had been done, instead of sending out some 80 Sub-Commissioners coming from different parts of the country—from different professions, of different social standing, and mode of living—each individual one to work out as best he could some workable definition of a fair rent, and how it was to be arrived at, I venture to say the difficulty as to finding efficient Sub-Commissioners would not have arisen; a smaller number would have been able to do the work, because, if once for all we knew exactly upon

  187
  what principles those fair rents were arrived at, we could form a very good estimate as to what the finding of the Sub-Commissioners would be, and in numberless cases which have gone into court a settlement would have been arrived at outside; and, more than that, if a smaller number of more competent men had been appointed in the capacity or Sub-Commissioners—men who would have commanded more confidence on ell sides—then a few findings in some districts would have been taken as precedents in others, and there would have been more settlements out of court in view of those findings. The Fry Commission itself, when it was examining into the method of fixing fair rents, absolutely came to a standstill, although they had for their own purposes defined a general idea what a fair rent was. They say, on page 20 of their Report—
  "The discussion into which we have been compelled to enter with regard to the practice in the ascertainment of fair rent has led us some way towards an explanation for ourselves of the meaning to be attributed to the two words 'fair rent.' We repeat that we have throughout felt that one of the most important questions on which we were required by your Majesty to express our opinion is, how far the present practice and methods of valuation carry into effect the intention of the Legislature in the fixing of fair rent; and, further, that it was impossible for us to answer that question without explaining to ourselves the meaning which we placed on the words. We should have hailed with the greatest satisfaction a judicial explanation of the words 'fair rent'; but in default of this we have done our best to understand them; and it is right that we should state the conclusion at which we have arrived."
  It was absolutely necessary to them, in order to inquire into the proceedings of the Sub-Commissioners, to satisfy themselves upon some definition as to what a fair rent was, and yet we have those Sub-Commissioners going over the country for 16 or 17 years settling rents, and during the whole of that time such a definition has never been laid down or given to them for their instruction or guidance. While a Commission of specially qualified experts were compelled to formulate for their own guidance as to what was meant by a gross fair rent in order to enable them to proceed with their investigation, the Sub-Commis-
  188
  sioners, not specially qualified, have for 16 years been light-heartedly transferring property to the amount or millions from owner to occupier without any such definition and without any rules for their general guidance. We can imagine, then, the dissatisfaction, the anxiety, and the uncertainty which the landlord feels when he goes into a Sub-Commissioner's court. The whole thing partakes of something of the nature or a gamble. The tenants' hopes have been raised so high as to the amount of extra deductions they will get, that they refuse to assent to any settlement offered by the landlord, and the landlord is debarred by the extravagant demands made by the tenants from settling out of court. The uncertainty as to what the finding of the Sub-Commissioner will be, the impossibility of forming any idea as to what the decision may be, has turned the whole thing into a gamble, so they trust to the turn of the cards and the humour of the situation. When the Sub-Commissioner has heard all the evidence, he leaves the town where he heard the case, and judgment is delivered in some town miles away. The landlord receives the information on the face of a halfpenny card, and all he knows is that, whereas heretofore he had been receiving a rent of £30, he is now to receive only £20. Naturally, he feels indignant, and, naturally, he appeals for a rehearing. And now we will pass to the head court and its procedure. The case comes before the head Commissioners, and a gentleman, who is called a court valuer, is appointed to go and view the farm. This is a rehearing of the case, and we expect to have an independent judgment upon the oases, but what do we find? We find that this court valuer, who is supposed to be independent, in settling the case, is provided with the pink schedule, which is filled up by the Sub-Commissioners in the court below. He goes with that in his hands; he examines the farm, and in many cases—almost every one—he merely says "ditto" to the Sub-Commissioners. Between the time of the first inspection of the Sub-Commissioners and the time that the pink schedule is in the hands of the landlord or his representative, the delay is so great that it is practically

  189
  of no use to him, and the Fry Commission Reports—
  "By the rules now in force a period of two months is given after the making of a fair rent order by a Sub-Commission for either party to demand a rehearing; and a right is also given to obtain a copy of the pink schedule on payment of a fee. It is evident that no wise litigant would determine whether or not to apply for a rehearing without seeing this schedule; and yet it appears that there are frequent delays in furnishing it to the litigants, and delays often of considerable length, sometimes so long as to preclude the possibility of considering its contents before a rehearing is asked for. This also appears to us to be a subject of just complaint, and in our opinion, the officers of the Land Commission should be required to send the copy within a specified number of days after receipt of the application for it."
  So that the document which is supposed to be given to the landlord to enable him to decide upon what grounds his case is settled, and whether it has been fairly decided or not, very often does not come into his hands until it is too late for him to be guided by it as to whether he should appeal or not. Now as to the method of rehearing. The first remark of the Fry Commission is, no witness, with, perhaps, a single expert, has spoken in defence of the existing system. That is the system by which this court valuer is sent out with the pink schedule in his hands to arrive at the valuation of the farm. They are pleased to call him an independent valuer, and he is furnished with two forms, A and B, which he is to fill in and observe; he is furnished with an alternative form of report; the one form, A, stating shortly an agreement in omnibus with the findings of the pink schedule, and the other form, B, which they were directed to use if they saw reason to differ substantially from the pink schedule. The court valuer has absolutely, on many occasions, simply copied the pink schedule. That is proved beyond a doubt from the Report—
  "The investigation of the court valuer, as hitherto carried on, cannot be considered an independent one. He generally considered himself bound by the decision of the Sub-Commission as to what improvements were to be allowed for; he admittedly accepted much on the strength of the pink schedule under appeal, and he was left at liberty to determine for himself what is a substantial difference from the previous findings."
  190
  We have a record of a case in which a very remarkable thing occurred, which has been already alluded to, in which, the tenant gave his evidence in terms of the Irish perch; and in converting the Irish perch into statute perches, instead of making the calculation at the ratio of lineal measure, it was made on the ratio of square measure, thereby very much increasing the number of perches which the tenant should be allowed for drains. That is a mistake which ought never to have occurred anywhere, and yet these figures, with these glaring mistakes in them, were copied figure by figure into the report of the court valuer; and I know of another case of an estate in Ireland where a Sub-Commissioner reported certain land as bog. The landlord drew the attention of the court valuer to that, and said, "Is it bog?" The court valuer replied, "No, that is corn land," and yet, when he made his report, it was identical to that of the pink schedule of the Sub-Commissioner. This court valuer's report is accepted as final by the Land Commission. Evidence which, if we appeal on matters of value, we are bound to produce, is not listened to, and we ask, what is the good of going on with evidence in the face of the court valuer's report? I would like to call attention to some of Mr. Commissioner O'Brien'a opinions as to the value of the court valuer's report. He says—
  "I think it is an essential thing to a just decision in these cases. One of the grave difficulties that I find on appeal is that everything is left as vague as possible. Of course, the court valuer will give as few reasons as he can."
  Again, he says about rehearings—
  "I think that the pace is such as to make the proper consideration of the cases that come before us impossible"—
  and he goes on to describe it as "racing through the hearings." Be it remembered that these court valuers, whose report is permitted to have, "in a very great number of cases, an almost decisive effect," are not sworn on appointment, are not sworn in court, whose very report is not on oath, are, in the Land Commission parlance, described as "independent," though the Royal Commission say—
  "These investigations as hitherto carried on cannot be considered as independent ones."

  191
  There is a very remarkable passage in Mr. O'Brien's evidence. He says, talking of the evidence given by the landlord and by the tenant—
  "I do not think the evidence on either side, if it came from a troop of archangels, would displace the evidence of the Report."
  So that when we come forward with our evidence, and we are confronted with the report of this being who occupies this high celestial place, I suggest he must be something higher than the archangels. I submit that we are not in the rehearing of our cases receiving that investigation to which we are entitled. We have been encouraged to hope that, when the Irish Local Government Bill has been disposed of, the Government will be inclined, "at some future date," to take into consideration the recommendations of the Fry Commission. I trust that future date is not far distant, as in the meantime there are men in Ireland who see nothing before them but ruin and exile. The reductions of the first 15 years have, whether just or unjust, condemned many to leave the home of their fathers and live among strangers. Further reductions in the immediate future will penetrate still further into the ranks of the Irish gentry; and we appeal to the Government to take steps to place the tribunal, at whose mercy we are, above the reach of suspicion, both as to its constitution and procedure. When a great Imperial question was trembling in the balance we refrained from agitating for the redress of grievances which we felt none the less acutely, and decided that, at any cost to ourselves, the issue should be placed before the people of Great Britain clear and unobscured by comparatively minor questions, at any rate, as far as we were concerned. In the fight for the maintenance of the Union we have suffered more than others; but we do not come here to-day to ask for any exceptional treatment on account of any services we may have rendered, but we do ask for the merest justice, and we appeal to that common sense and that spirit of fair play upon the possession of which every Englishman prides himself, and in which he rejoices as the foundation of our laws and the basis of our social life.
  LORD CLANRICARDE: There is one definition of the Land Court decision which I think has not yet been advertised—that it is one which a solvent middleman will not take from a subtenant. There is one note of warning cognate to this question, and which I am anxious to submit to your Lordships before this discussion closes. In forming an opinion upon the conduct and methods of the Land Commission, we have especially to be on our guard against one misleading superstition. I pointed it out because time after time it has been, put forward with undue levity by those who ought to know better; I mean the assumption that the depression on agriculture has fallen as heavily on Ireland as on England. We accept that unchallenged, but a glance will show that it is quite untenable; it begs the whole question. In 1846, the time of the famine in Ireland, rent absolutely disappeared. If the circumstances are similar they would disappear in England too; but rents slightly went up, because circumstances differed. This is the argument to which I have objected, because the circumstances differ in the two countries to such an extent as to preclude their being analogous, and the argument from analogy is entirely misleading, proverbially misleading. At present, the cases, however, have been reversed as compared to the cases in the past. At present the cultivation of farming in England has been lamentable beyond words, both on public and other grounds. In Ireland tenants have been adding to their savings bank deposits. In England tenancies have gone a-begging; in Ireland they have fetched large sums. There has been a dearth of candidates, for farms in England, while in Ireland candidates have even been boycotted to stop the glut, and so on. Circumstances, differ so widely that the wiser and candid will beware of the misleading argument by analogy, and will judge the cases by the facts and by the evidence. In order to support my contention with facts and with evidence, I ought perhaps, before I sit down, to call attention for a moment or two to such cases in point as bear out my contention, but, on the understanding that I have plenty of other cases, I will only invite attention to two alone. I point to them in particular

  193
  because they happen to be by chance: one, the first land case in 1881, on a large estate proverbially low let, of which I have knowledge; and the second, the latest land case in 1898, on the same estate; consequently, they help us to get an idea of the devastation—intentional or not—wrought by the Land Court from the beginning. In the earlier case the tenant began by being a subtenant; as such, he paid to the middleman half as much again as the middleman paid the landlord; that is to say, where the middleman paid £10, the subtenant paid him £15. At the death of the middleman the sub-tenant asked for the farm, and the landowner gave it at the old low rent, so that the sub-tenant got off somewhere about 35 per cent. of the rents he had continued to pay to the middleman as long as it was demanded, which is very strong evidence that the landlord was letting his farm at somewhere about 53 per cent. below its commercial value. But though the sub-tenant was willing to pay the middleman £15, he objected to pay the landlord even £10 for the same article. He went to the court, and the court cut down this rent very nearly 2s. in the £. Being the first case, it was watched as a test case, with the result that independent experts were forced to the conclusion that the 30 per cent. abatement more than adequately met the depression of 1881, and that the court was determined to cut down the rents regardless of the merits of the cases. The second case was of another kind. The tenant only took the farm about four years ago in the actual condition of the occupancy market, and pleaded that he had taken it long ago in good times, and that the subsequent depression had made the rent too high. The farm was a pasture farm—not in tillage—no house and no building. The tenant consequently could not plead that any additional rent he had paid would have been for building or for land improvements, but he so well knew the rent was low, that over and above the rent he did pay to the outgoing tenant, he paid between five and six years' purchase in addition. Having thus backed up his opinion that the rent was low, he told the Land Court it was too high, and the court cut it down 14 per cent. It is quite unnecessary to say that it is no
  194
  business of the court to know or ascertain such facts, but that in itself is not a sound position to take up. The point is that such facts are emphatic evidence that the rents are low, and that the machinery is defective. It reminds us of a clever machine invented by a well-known man of our time for cutting down timber; it did cut down timber stupendously, but it had one fatal defect, which landed those concerned in insolvency; it always cut down the wrong timber. That is what the Land Court is doing; it is always cutting down the wrong thing, and such results as that have put an end to all confidence in the safety of men's homes in Ireland, and the stability of ownership, which is at the foundation of all stability, and has thereby stopped the inflow of capital into Ireland. It is the worst thing that could have happened, and the evidence of the Fry Commission will still further confirm that alarm; so much so, that surely we are fairly entitled to hope and expect that it will at length awaken public attention to the necessity of attacking the mischief.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: My Lords, it is necessary in any discussion on the Fry Commission and its Report to bear in mind that the scope of the inquiry was necessarily confined and narrow. The Commission was not appointed to make a general inquiry into all the allegations that have been made against the administration of the land laws by the Land Commission, nor to consider all the charges that have been framed against it on the part of either landlords or tenants. It was appointed for a narrow and specific object, which was clearly defined and confined to two topics, and the Fry Commission, in its Report—a balanced Report—by no means found that a great many of the charges that have been preferred on the part of the landlords and the tenants have been made out. It could be ascertained at once, on reference to the Report of the Fry Commission, that they felt the responsibility of dealing with the characters of men who were placed in the enormously difficult position of administering the Act of 1881. I agree with what has been said, that it would be nearly impossible to find any men who,

  195
  if put to administer such an Act, before whom, such a problem was set as to measure fair rents, would acquit themselves of the enormously difficult duty in a way that would give satisfaction to both parties, or either. The problem is one of infinite difficulty and complexity, and as far as their character is concerned I am bound to say this on behalf of the Commissioners, that they have come out of the inquiry with their honour and integrity and rectitude unassailed and entirely uncondemned. The Fry Commission pointed out that, as a whole—
  "The Assistant Commissioners and the court valuers have striven honestly, and to the best of their ability, to discharge the difficult duties cast upon them, and it is plain that their work is now done with more care and deliberation than in the early days of the Land Commission."
  Now, it is obvious that that is a finding of the very highest importance at the very threshhold of the question, and although it found that there was suspicion, I would like to know what kind of tribunal could ever be got to administer this Act of Parliament that there would not be suspicions about. Before they were appointed for a week there would be suspicions on all sides. But in reference to these suspicions the Commission is careful to point out how little they may be justified by the facts, and that many of the suspicions are doubtless entirely unfounded, and they mention that in first fixing the fair rents they were inclined to consider that the abatement then made was not, on the whole, excessive. These are important facts, and they also considered the argument made on the contrast between the prices given for tenant right and the prices for fair rents, and they did not take that in the way that was suggested by the landowners with such insistence and force of argument. They also discounted the argument advanced on the contrast between the fall of prices and the reductions of rent. It will be found, on reading the Commissioners' Report, that there are many things that each side would like to criticise before accepting it without qualification and without hesitation. The Report said—
  "We recognise that rents in Ireland have been greatly reduced; but it is notorious that
  196
  causes of a general character have operated to depress the rentals of all parts of the United Kingdom."
  And this Commission deemed it right, in dealing with this important question of the character and the integrity, and in the method in which these Sub-Commissioners performed their difficult duties, to state, with the greatest emphasis—
  "We thus feel ourselves unable to conclude that the machinery of the Land Statutes has been uniformly worked with injustice towards landlords."
  And later—
  "We are also convinced that the administration of justice has not been poisoned by any systematic endeavour on the part of the Commissioners or of the Assistant Commissioners to benefit either side at the expense of the other."
  It is only fair, on behalf of these gentlemen who have had serious and unpopular duties cast upon them, to mention these findings. Of course, that does not affect the general administration of the Act, and whether it is open to the criticisms which have been urged against it, and repeated against it with such force and vigour, I do not think is a question now for me to go into. It is a novel position to ma to be in, to have to explain everything connected with the Act of 1881. There was no more strenuous opponent of that Act, and no more resolute critic, when it was going through the House of Commons; but that Act, for weal or for woe, laid down that the fixing of a fair rent should be cast upon this tribunal. Admittedly, that was an immensely difficult task, and I question if any tribunal can be devised or suggested that will give satisfaction to both sides, and which will also quiet suspicion and allay uneasiness. It is said that they were wrong in not earlier defining, or attempting to define, fair rent. I am told that that will come before the courts, and possibly before me. The Act itself, however, when an opportunity was given to it of defining a Pair rent, shrank from the task and did not define it, so that some consideration should be given to those who are given the administration of the Act, which itself declined the difficulty of a definition. The Fry Commission Report spoke in

  197
  reference to land purchase as if it were delayed by reason of the Irish Land Act of 1896. I am not prepared to accept that statement. I believe that the Act of 1896 has facilitated and developed and encouraged land purchase, and the figures overwhelmingly demonstrate the truth of what I am saying. No figures were given to-night relating to this immense question. One of the great remedial circumstances connected with land administration in Ireland is the growth of land purchase, and if it can be shown that land purchase was retrograding, or not in favour, or paralysed, I assume that would be an immense fact, and one that would be looked into with the keenest anxiety, to find out what was the cause of such a disastrous state of affairs. Land purchase is growing every day, and is in thorough development. Applications for loans under the Land Purchase Act received in the year ending 31st March, 1897, numbered 2,783, and the total amount applied for wag £776,410; and in the year ending 31st March, 1898, the figure had increased to the substantial extent of 6,405 applications, with a total amount applied for of £1,824,652. It is hard to realise a more rapid and a more decisive growth, showing the vigour with which this system is now working in Ireland; and in the very last six months that we can deal with—that ending the 30th of June of the present year—the number of advances applied for was 4,130, whereas on the 30th June, 1897, the number of advances applied for was 2,993. So that it is obvious that this great operation of land purchase is now proceeding in Ireland with vigour and with effect; and I now part from the subject with one word in reference to the section in which my noble Friend the noble Duke prefers his opinion to mine. There are, doubtless, a great many other people in the same position, but I may be excused if I say that on a law question I prefer my opinion to that of the noble Duke. What do I find? One would think, by what my noble Friend said of the 40th section of the Act of 1896—that which enabled a vigorous dealing with estates under receivers, and which had been in the Land Court for a long time—that it was a clear failure, and had caused
  198
  evil and catastrophe and disaster. But that is not so. As long as the tribunals differed on the construction and extent of their powers, of course, there was a deadlock, but when the decision of the Court of Appeal, which my noble Friend does not accept, as representative of the highest reasoning, was given, the deadlock ceased, and the section is now in fair and reasonable operation. I am not going to wade through figures, but I may say that 204 holdings on 14 estates have been actually purchased, and that nearly £50,000 has been advanced. Requests have been lodged in the Land Commission on as many as 81 estates. The section is working, and there is no reason for supposing it will not continue to work, and I believe it will work with effect and with success. Now, it is true, as was pointed out by the noble Duke, that these recommendations, made by the Fry Commission have to be looked at with discernment. Some of them can be worked out by rules if approved of. Of course, the Report has to be examined critically. You do not at once adopt every single syllable of a Report like that. A Commission makes its Report, refers to its evidence, and then its Report is to be considered, examined, and judged with great respect, and with every consideration given to it. As I have pointed out, some of these recommendations can be carried out by rules framed by the Commissioners themselves, some can be carried out after negotiation with the Treasury, some can be carried out only by the aid of legislation. Now, the Government have no control over the Rules of the Land Commission. The Land Commission is an independent body which makes its own rules of its own motion, subject only to the condition of laying them before the Houses of Parliament. But it is right to say this: that the Land Commission, although one volume of evidence was only circulated, a considerable time after the Commission sat, and another volume is not yet before the public, containing the papers and memoranda that were relied upon by them, have not been idle in the matter. Their work is now immense, because they have to deal with the great increase of figures, and the second term applications—an enormous number of cases, to be counted

  199
  by the thousand, before the Assistant Commissioners, and also before the Land Commissioners themselves. Notwithstanding that the Land Commission has applied itself with the greatest vigour and energy to the consideration of all the recommendations of the Fry Commission, with an honest and earnest desire to do what they could in adopting such recommendations as commended themselves at the time, I know that when the Long Vacation comes they intend to apply themselves further, and to consider it with the most anxious and eager desire to work out any reforms that they think reasonable and right. I will tell you what they have done. A new form of valuers' report has been drained, accompanied by an instruction designed to secure greater care and accuracy in the matter of instruction, valuation, and report. It has also been decided to transmit to the Assistant Commissioners a report of important questions decided by the Land Commissioners of the Court of Appeal. I attach great importance to that. Up to this time the Assistant Commissioners were left to the accident of whether they heard any conversation, or saw in the newspapers, as to what was decided in the superior tribunals. But now it is determined that a report of all the important decisions will be sent to the Assistant Commissioners for their guidance. An alternative procedure dependent on the consent of the parties has been promulgated as well. It is a matter requiring a great deal of care. I must remind your Lordships of this circumstance. When the Land Act of 1896 was in the House of Commons there was contained in it a carefully-framed and most elaborate alternative provision. It was worked out with the most extreme care and minuteness, with an earnest and honest desire to facilitate decisions being arrived at without cost, delay, or litigation. I do not believe it received anything like support upon either side, and the result was, it had to be cut out; and now, that having been the attitude; of the Government in this matter, the Fry Commission report, practically, that the Government were right in their endeavour to deal with this in the Act of 1896, and they have recommended an alternative procedure, which, I am told by those who
  200
  have gone into the matter with closeness, would require legislation to carry it into effect, and would be ultra vires if it was sought to be applied without legislation. But the Land Commissioners themselves applied their own power of framing rules to formulating an alternative procedure, dependent upon the consent of the parties for its adoption, and that has now been promulgated, and I look to it with a reasonable hope, at all events, that it may accomplish a simplification and a cheapening of this process of ascertaining a fair rent. There is another thing that they have done. The suggestion as to the inspection of drains is a very important matter—it commended itself to everyone, and that has been incorporated in the instruction to valuers. A copy of the pink Schedule will be sent to the applicants within a limited and satisfactory number of days after the application. The practice of communicating the valuer's report to the parties will also be resumed. Speaking, myself, as a man without any particularly close knowledge of the working out of the details of the administration of the Act, it seems to me to be only fair to communicate the valuers' reports to both parties. I think it is most wise and most prudent. It gives to each party an opportunity of knowing where they are, and what they have to meet, and if they think it well and proper to see one another, and say, "We may as well drop litigation; we are here together, and may agree with a little adjustment of the figures on either side"; then that will be a great work achieved. I am sure that there is honest work done. Considering the difficulties of their position, and the time at their disposal, they have been tremendously hard-worked men ever since this Report came out, and I trust and hope that during the Long Vacation they will apply themselves steadily to this question, with a view to seeing whether they cannot adopt and incorporate any further improvements in the machine that is handed them to work. My Lords, criticisms have been made, and not unnaturally made, upon the tenure of office of the Assistant Commissioners, bat again I protest that I am in a novel position in having to defend the machinery and the work of the Act of

  201
  1881. I am not an advocate of the Act, because I was an opponent of it; but I say that the machinery of the Act exists, whether for weal or for woe, and it has to be worked out by the Assistant Commissioners, and it would be a lavish waste of public money to make these gentlemen, no matter how respected or trustworthy, permanent officers of State, with a right to substantial and large salaries, carrying with these salaries a right to pensions. The necessity for their employment varies enormously from time to time sometimes eight will do, and sometimes 30, 40 80 and more are required. I agree with this, and every possible effort should be made to ensure that none but men of character and repute, and impartiality and proved knowledge, should be selected for this difficult and responsible office. I know that enormous pains are taken, at present upon this subject in order to try and get men that are to be relied upon to stand fairly and impartially between man and man in the settlement of this difficult problem of ensuring a fair rent between landlord and tenant—an enormously difficult and complicated question. Every effort is now being made, and I know that consideration has been recently given to this, whether further tests cannot be found and applied to the ascertainment of fitness of applicants for this difficult task. The question of tenure is, for the reasons I have said, extremely difficult, but a great many of the Assistant Commissioners and a substantial number of the local Commissioners are permanent officers of the State. It is under consideration whether something may not be done for the others. It is necessary to avoid waste. That is a matter for the Treasury, an important body, which has to be approached and consulted and satisfied. I venture to say this, that your Lordships may be satisfied that the important topics that are involved in the Report of the Fry Commission are being looked into fairly and impartially, with an earnest desire to do what is fair and right and reasonable between man and man, and to adopt such measures as commend themselves to our judgment, so as to secure justice to all parties in this extremely difficult matter.
  LORD CLONBROCK: At this late period of the evening I shall not attempt to bring forward, as I had intended, any details connected with the Pry Commission, or extracts from the evidence. In fact, it would be hardly necessary for me to do so after the exceedingly able speech of the noble Lord behind me, whom I am sure your Lordships heard with great pleasure for the first time. But I should like to say a word or two on the reference made by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the portions of the Report of that Commission which deal with the administration of the law by the Land Commission. It is a great hardihood for me to attempt to answer my noble and learned Friend, but I am not convinced, as he seems to be, that the Land Commission has emerged from the ordeal of the Fry Commission with such flying colours. In the first place, the Fry Commission adopt a statement of Mr. Morley's Committee Mr. Morley's Committee reported that—
  "there is neither a common understanding of the law nor anything approaching to uniformity in practice; our experience convinces us that what was true in 1894 is true now."
  If the Land Commissioners are satisfied with that and some other passages to which I will presently refer, all I can say is that they are very easily pleased, and must have previously formed a very modest estimate of the way in which they discharge their duties. My noble and learned Friend quoted the following passage—
  "We are also convinced that the administration of justice has not been poisoned by any systematic endeavour on the part of the Commissioners, or of the Assistant Commissioners, to benefit either side at the expense of the other."
  But he omitted to quote the sentence immediately preceding—
  "We are convinced, as we have already shown, that the settlement of fair rents has been effected in an unsatisfactory manner—with diversity of opinion and practice, sometimes with carelessness, and sometimes with the bias towards one side or the other which exists in many honest minds."
  I do not think that very high praise either. Again, they say—
  "We feel ourselves unable to conclude that the machinery of the Land Statutes has been uniformly worked with injustice towards landlords."

  203
  I do not suppose anybody ever said it had been uniformly worked with, injustice. I imagine there never was a tribunal that did not occasionally deviate into justice. But it is not high praise to say that they have not been uniformly unjust. Again, the Report says, with reference to the occupation interest—
  "For the reasons already given, we find it impossible to form any certain judgment as to the extent to which this allowance has been made; but so far as it has ultimately acted in lowering the amount fixed for fair rent it has obviously worked an injustice towards the landlords."
  I should have thought myself, on reading that Report, that it confirmed the greater part of the complaints that have been made for many years against the action of the Land Commission. It does appear to me that in many points at least it confirms what we have previously said. As to the remark of the Chief Secretary the other day deprecating further legislation, the noble and learned Lord agreed with that, and I am disposed thoroughly to agree with that too, for I am pretty sure that if any legislation were to be introduced to remedy the defects which we believe to exist in the administration, something would be thrown in on the other side as a makeweight, some new exceptions would be discovered—"sporadic exceptions," to use the words of the First Lord of the Treasury two years ago—which it would be found necessary to bring under the Land Act, for the sake of symmetry, and to ensure that the line of confiscation should be drawn with perfect accuracy and precision. I speak feelingly on this subject, my Lords, for I am suffering from one of these sporadic gentlemen myself at the present moment. There is a grass farm, of mine of just under £100 a year on which there is not a house or a building of any kind. There can be no question of improvement, and there has never been any tenant right on it. He is going to sell his interest, which he is able to do under the Act of 1896, and that means that about five years' purchase may be carved out of the fee-simple value of the farm and transferred to him. That is for the purpose of symmetry—and there is no real symmetry in the matter. That gentleman and his class have nothing in common with agricultural tenants excepting that they pay
  204
  rent at more or less uncertain intervals. One of the great grievances which have been dwelt upon is the qualification of the Assistant Commissioners and valuers. I am convinced that the noble and learned Lord and the Chief Secretary spare no pains to get competent men; but I believe that under the present system the task is an impossible one. In the absence of all rules and directions and of definitions, even a definition of that the fixing of which is the main part of their duty—namely, fair rent and of "true value," it is impossible that these men can discharge their duties in any but a most irregular and haphazard manner. I have, consequently, for a considerable time refused to recommend anybody to the Government for these appointments. No man is qualified to perform an impossible task. But what we now want the Government to consider is the position of the landlords under this present system. By legislation we have had about 25 per cent. of our property taken away. That is admitted by all. We know that my noble and learned Friend strongly disapproves of the Land Act; and the speeches made by the noble Marquess at the head of the Government have dealt more severely with it than anything I can say. Is the remainder of our property to be whittled away by a system the condemnation of which is affirmed by the Report of that most competent Commission? My noble and learned Friend tells us that a great many of these recommendations must be carried out by the Land Commission, that they are a judicial body, and that the Government have no power to force them to do anything. In that case our position is a very deplorable one. But we claim the protection of Her Majesty's Government. We say we have been, and are being, most grievously injured. If any of Her Majesty's subjects were injured by the action of any foreign State, the noble Marquess at the head of the Government would not be slow to demand redress. He would deem, and the country would agree with him, that the defence and protection of their interests was a point in which the national honour was concerned. But, my Lords, the national honour may be as much involved in dealing with Her Majesty's subjects at home

  205
  as it is in vindicating their interests abroad, and we are fully justified in calling upon Her Majesty's Government to exercise the same discrimination, the same sense of justice, and the same energy in regard to our claims as they would insist upon in the case of any foreign State.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: I think that your Lordships would not be grateful to me if I were to follow the example of one or two of the speakers and attempt to review at length either the Report of the Fry Commission, or the evidence taken by the Commissioners; nor will I quote the Report for the purpose of endeavouring to decide whether it amounts or not to a condemnation of the manner in which effect has been given to the Act by the Assistant Commissioners. We all know that when we get Blue Books we select passages which fit in best with our own particular theory. I notice that the noble Lord who spoke just before my noble and learned Friend selected one or two passages which apparently told against the Land Commissioners. My noble and learned Friend quoted other passages which seemed, I thought, to show that upon the whole the sincerity and good faith of the Commissioners, as a body, had come out unscathed from this inquiry. So far as the Report is condemnatory, it condemns, not the good faith of the men, but the methods which they have followed, and which, no doubt, have in some respects been faulty and imperfect. As to the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, we certainly regard the Report of the Commission as an extremely valuable document, and one which throws a good deal of useful light upon this question. Then the noble Duke and other Lords ask us why it is that, having had the Report before us for some time, we have taken no action upon it. My only object in now rising is to suggest to your Lordships that there has been no remissness on our part, and that everything that could be done to give effect to the recommendation of the Commissioners has been done, so far as opportunity permitted. The noble Lord who spoke last said, and I think your Lordships agree with him, that further legislation was not, upon the whole, desirable.
  206
  If, then, we are to exclude further legislation, what is there that is left? The large bulk of the recommendations of the Commission involve, not legislation, but alteration in the rules by the Commissioners themselves. Now, what is our position with regard to those rules? We are not able to dictate to the Land Commission what rules it shall issue, or by what procedure it shall be guided; that is a matter for the Land Commission itself. Is there any reason whatever for supposing that the Land Commission is reluctant in this matter? I think that the speech of the noble and learned Lord should have been sufficient to satisfy your Lordships upon that point. He was able to show to the House that in the very short time which has passed since the Report was issued the Land Commission have of their own motion taken action in respect of a number of points which, as anyone must know who has listened to the Debates in this House, are points which Irish landowners have always regarded as being points of the very utmost importance to them; and I may venture to mention one point which I think the noble and learned Lord did not refer to. I noticed the other day that the Land Commission had postponed the hearing of a case upon the ground that the tenant had deliberately allowed his farm to deteriorate. If that decision denotes a new departure in the work of the Land Commission, I think that is a new departure of very great moment, and one which your Lordships may well receive with satisfaction. That is what the Land Commission have already done in the short time which they have had to consider the Report of the Commission, and they give us to understand that that is only a beginning, and that in the Vacation, when they are no longer face to face with the great stress of work which has lately confronted them, they are prepared to go further, and consider at their leisure the remaining recommendations embodied in the Report. My Lords, amongst the matters which they will no doubt take into consideration is the question of the tenure of the Assistant Commissioners, a most important point. Here, again, we are given to understand that the mind of the Land Commission is open, and that it is in their contemplation to take steps to test more thoroughly

  207
  than heretofore the fitness of these gentlemen for the appointments which they hold, and also to take steps for the purpose of giving them greater security of tenure than that which some of them now enjoy. Of course, I do not think anybody would reasonably suggest that the whole of these Assistant Commissioners, who vary in number, I believe, from eight to 80, should all be made permanent officers of the State with a right to pensions; but, without going that great length, it should, I think, be possible to contrive some means of securing that in future some care should be taken in the selection and appointment of these important officers. I do not think, therefore, that your Lordships have any reason for being dissatisfied with what has been already achieved in the direction of giving effect to the Report, and I cannot help hoping that we are nearer at this moment than we have yet been to a material and substantial improvement in the practice and procedure of these tribunals. I would add one word. I do not think all the Royal Commissions in the world, however able, or all the Governments, however well disposed, are likely to evolve out of the land system now in force in Ireland a system which shall be in all respects satisfactory to all parties, and calculated in all respects to inspire them with confidence. You may elaborate your pink schedules, you may improve your valuers' reports, you may declare what is to be added to the fair rents, and what is to be taken away from the fair rent; but the initial figure is always one which depends, not upon scientific principles, not upon commercial competition, but upon the idiosyncrasies of the particular individuals who are called upon to adjudicate upon these matters. For these reasons I have always believed that the only really satisfactory solution for which we should look, in regard to the Irish land question, is the solution of purchase; and I do not think that any part of my noble and learned Friend's
  208
  speech was more satisfactory than that in which he called the attention of the House to the renewed activity which has lately manifested itself with regard to purchase, and which shows that, under the legislation of 1896, purchase is, at all events, progressing with much greater rapidity than it has progressed for some time past. I apologise to the House for saying these few words, and I trust that the noble Lords will not think that the result of this Debate has been one of which they in any way complain.
  THE EARL OF ARRAN: I have no intention of detaining your Lordships for more than two minutes upon this subject, but I should like to draw attention to a passage in the speech which Mr. Gerald Balfour made in reference to this matter, and which I have quoted before. I think that is a very important and serious statement, because it resolves itself into this: that no matter what protection may be put into the Local Government Bill for the minority, it will be in the power of the Sub-Commissioners to do away with it altogether, and to throw the rates, by reduction of rent, practically again upon the landlord; and I think it cannot be denied that, when a tribunal which has such enormous powers given it as this has, great care should be taken that it should be of the most trustworthy nature that it is possible for the entire wisdom of perfect government to procure. I do not want to go further into the matter, but I am sure that your Lordships who have read that Report will see that the Fry Commission thinks that there are many reforms that are absolutely necessary, and I trust that no unnecessary delay will occur in introducing them. Only one word more, and that merely an appeal ad misericordiam. While this is going on, while these opinions are being taken, there are men and women reduced from affluence to a pittance, and from a pittance to poverty, and from poverty to charity, to prevent them from

  209
  going into the workhouse. If any improvement can be made in the administration of an Act which has occasioned so much misery, I do think that the responsibility is one that I should not like to share with Her Majesty's Government.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at 9.15.