Sitting of 31 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.

    CHARING CROSS AND STRAND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    CROYDON TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
    CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (BRIDGES) BILL.
    HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
    OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

    MORLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

    MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND BILL [Lords],
    Read a second time, and committed.
    Ordered, That the Standing Orders relative to the Committal and Report stages of Private Bills, and Standing Orders 217, 242, 223, and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
    Verbal Amendments made.
    Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

    MARGATE CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER).
    Ordered, That, in the case of the Margate Corporation Bill [Lords], Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Queen's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

    PRIVATE BILLS.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the session.
    Ordered, That as regards Private Bills already returned by the House of Lords with Amendments such Amendments be now considered.
    Ordered, That as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments such Amendments to be considered forthwith.
    Ordered, That when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

ABERDEEN POLICE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  DURHAM (COUNTY OF) ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL.

    EXETER CORPORATION BILL.
    FARNWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
    LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
    RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL.
    SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
    WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY GAS BILL.
    WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL.
    WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to, in pursuance of the Order of the House of this day.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL [Lords.]
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    FRASER SETTLED CHATTELS BILL [Lords].
    Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Bill to be read the third time.

    SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill, without amendment.
    That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill, with Amendments.
    That they have agreed to Amendments to—Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords], without amendment.

PETITIONS.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  Petition from Nottingham, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF SALE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kinning Park, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Wigan; and Pwllheli; to lie upon the Table.
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  Petition of the National Poor Law Officers' Association, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Statement in explanation of draft of an Order in Council for transferring to and making exercisable by the Board of Education certain powers of the Charity Commissioners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Local Government Board 1899–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd May; Mr. T. W. Russell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 308.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April, 1899 to 31st March, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Twenty-second Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland) for 1899–1900, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Thirty-sixth Annual Report of the Registrar General, being for the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONTRACTS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES (WAGES) (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th April; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Account presented, showing the Receipt and Expenditure of Naval Prize, Bounty, Salvage, and other Moneys between the 1st April, 1899, and 31st March, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 309.]
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, MARRIAGES, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Forty-fourth Detailed Annual Report of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland (Abstracts of 1898) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 30th July; Mr. Ritchie]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1890 (RULES).
  Copy presented, of Rules made by the Board of Trade in pursuance of Section 5 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 17.
  Return ordered, "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the defi-

  159
  nite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during Session II. of 1899 and the Session of 1900 (in the same form as, and in continuation of, Parliamentary Paper, No. 324, of Session I. of 1899)." —(Mr. Caldwell.)

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER NO. 25).
  Return ordered, "respecting application of Standing Order No. 25 (Closure of Debate) during Session II. of 1899 and the Session of 1900, under the following heads:—

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7.

  Date when Closure moved.

  By whom moved.

  Question before House or Committee when moved.

  Whether in House or Committee.

  Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman.

  Assent with held because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion.

  Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 325, of Session I. of 1899)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Divisions of the House in Session II. of 1899 and in the Session of 1900; stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority, Tellers included; also the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions on Public Business from Private; and also the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.278 of Session I. of 1899)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during the Session of 1900; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of
  160
  Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No., 0.274, of Session I. of 1899)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session II. of 1899 and in the Session of 1900; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.275 of Session I. of 1899)."— (Mr. Caldwell.)
  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1900, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No, 0.276, of Session I. of 1899)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the number days on which the House sat in Session II. of 1899, and in the Session of 1900, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.277, of Session I. of 1899)" —(Mr. Caldwell.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
  Return ordered, "showing, with reference to Session II. of 1889 and the Session of 1900, (1) the number of

  161
  Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Government Business had precedence; (2) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Private Members had precedence; (3) the number of other Sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, Government Business had precedence; (4) the number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence under a special order of House; (5) the number of Saturday Sittings; (6) the total number of Sittings at which Government business had precedence; (7) the total number of days on which the House sat; (8) the total number of Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (9) the number of days on which Business of Supply was considered (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 326, of Session I. of 1899."— (Mr. Caldwell.)

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Returns ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session of 1900, classed according to the following subjects:— Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Gas; Gas and Water; Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, etc. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Divorce; Naturalisation; and Miscellaneous. Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in the Session of 1900 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of
  162
  which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed. Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in the Session of 1900, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the number of days on which each Member attended; and of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.273, of Session I. of 1899)."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

QUESTIONS.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK—ADVANCE OF THE ALLIES ON PEKING.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the message received from Sir Claude MacDonald, an immediate advance cannot be made by the allied troops without waiting for the appointment of a commander-in-chief, and, failing this, whether Japan will not be commissioned to advance alone.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): The latest advices from General Gaselee show that he contemplates an immediate advance, in which he hopes for the co-operation of the allied forces.

  RECENT INTELLIGENCE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs any further news with regard to China?
  *MR. BRODRICK: We have no news I as regards the Legations beyond the telegram from Sir Claude MacDonald which was published last night.

  TREATMENT OF LI HUNG CHANG AT HONG KONG.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the action of Sir Henry Blake in furnishing Li Hung Chang with a military guard of honour upon his departure recently from Hong Kong meets with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government.
  *MR. BRODRICK: We have not received any report on the subject, and I cannot, therefore, say what took place or give any opinion upon it.

  EXPORTS OF MUNITIONS OF WAR TO CHINA.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the names of the British firms whose action in supplying China with arms or ammunition has necessitated preventative legislation by the Government at this period of the session.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The introduction of the Bill referred to was necessitated by general grounds of policy; I have no material for entering upon the alleged action of individual firms.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—EXPEND TURE TO DATE.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of money spent on the South African War up to the most recent date.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): It is impossible, as the hon. Member, no doubt, understands, to give any accurate or certain figure, but the War Office estimate the total expenditure up to date at about £42,000,000, exclusive of interest in respect of war debt.

  BOER TREATMENT OF BRITISH PRISONERS.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office received from the
  164
  Foreign Office some ten days ago information of the ill-fare of the British prisoners at Nooitgedacht, that some were dead and many sick of dysentery, that for eleven days they have been without meat, that their ordinary allowance was one pound of meat per week, that they were without many necessaries and in want of clothing and means to obtain it, and will he explain why this information was not forwarded, and will he yet forward it to, among others, the headquarters of the 13th Yeomanry in London, as promised on their enrolment, that corps being among the prisoners; whether any offer or attempt has been made to send in medical assistance from our own Army in the same manner in which our doctors and ambulances and medical comforts are given to the Boer prisoners and sick, and if he will state the date of any such offer or attempt, and whether the Boers have refused to allow such medical assistance to be given; and, if so, whether the British Army will continue to supply the same assistance to Boer prisoners and sick, while it is refused to be allowed to British prisoners and sick; and whether he has taken or will take any steps to ascertain the names of the dead and the sick.
  The following questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. KIMBER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what has been done with the quantity of letters addressed by post to members of the 13th Imperial Yeomanry Corps, Cape Town, for many weeks past; and have any steps been taken to get them forwarded to the members of that corps at Nooitgedacht, who have for many weeks been known to be there detained; and can he say whether all letters so addressed were duly delivered at Cape Town, and to whom; and with whom does the forwarding thence of such letters rest.
  MR. KIMBER: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office some ten days ago received information of the ill-fare of the British prisoners at Nooitgedacht, that some were dead, and many sick of dysentery, that for eleven days they have been without meat, that their ordinary allowance was one pound of meat per week, that they were absolutely without

  165
  many necessaries, and in want of clothing and means to obtain it; and will he explain why this information was not forwarded to the War Office, and also, among others, to the headquarters of the 13th Yeomanry in London, for communication to relatives of the prisoners, as promised on their enrolment.
  MR. KIMBER: To ask the Under Secretary of State for War what orders have been given, or steps taken, respecting the quantity of letters and other communications addressed to members of the 13th Imperial Yeomanry Corps, Cape Town, for many weeks past; and what steps have been taken to gee them forwarded to the members of that corps at Nooitgedacht, where they have for many weeks been known to be detained.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): If my hon. friend will allow me, I will answer his four questions together. It is true that on the 20th of this month the Foreign Office received a telegram from Consul General Crowe about the condition of the prisoners at Nooitgedacht. That telegram was not published, nor was it communicated to the head-quarters of the regiments concerned. We have hitherto refrained from publishing telegrams from Captain Crowe referring to his efforts on behalf of British prisoners, because we have good reason to believe that such publication might embarrass him and reduce the prisoners' chance of receiving letters and comforts. We still hold that view, and I must appeal to my hon. friend, in the interests of the prisoners, to allow the Government to be the judge in this matter. I understand, however, on good authority that the supply of food for the prisoners is insufficient, that they had no meat or salt for eleven days, and that the ordinary allowance of meat was one pound per week; but that the general state of their health was good, and that only two deaths were reported, that about seventy men were in hospital, but no cases very serious. Perhaps I may again repeat that the Government has made, and is making, every attempt to ameliorate the condition of these prisoners, both in regard to their receiving letters and in other respects; that a tele-
  166
  gram was despatched to Lord Roberts on the 24th instant, urging him to do all he could, and that a further telegram to the same effect has been sent to-day.
  MR. KIMBER: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the last part of the first question. Will he take any steps to ascertain the names of the dead and the sick?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I think the hon. Member has not listened to my reply. I said both in forwarding letters and in other respects. All these points are taken into consideration, and everything is being done that can be done; but to discuss the means that are taken would be to defeat the object of the hon. Member and of all of us.

  RELIEF FOR WOUNDED SOLDIERS' FAMILIES.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the comments made at a recent, meeting of the Cork Board of Guardians upon an application for out-door relief by the wife and children of a wounded soldier in South Africa; and whether, with a view to remedy the hardship of taxing Irish ratepayers for the support of soldiers' widows, wives, and children, as well as for the cost of the war, he will suggest to the committees of the various charitable war funds the desirability of transmitting; a reasonable proportion of these funds for distribution in Ireland.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The families of Irish soldiers have the same el aim on all general patriotic funds as other soldiers, and there is no reason to suppose that the claim is not recognised. The question, of giving State pensions to widows is, as I have more than once stated, now under consideration.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the question of granting gratuities also be considered?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The whole question is under consideration. The Leader of the House has already made a statement on the subject, and I cannot carry it any further.

  GRATUITIES TO VOLUNTEER OFFICERS.
  MR. BURT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Militia officers whose regiments have been embodied and who have served in the South African War will, according to the Queen's Regulations, be entitled to receive the sum of £100 at the end of the war; and whether, if that is so, a similar gratuity will be given to Volunteer officers who have served in South Africa.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I answered this question in the affirmative on the 27th inst.

  ARTILLERY SUBALTERNS.
  COLONEL LONG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, according to the establishment, in the cavalry the proportion of first lieutenants to second lieutenants is eight to six, and in the infantry eight to four at home, equal in the colonies, and nine to eight in India, while in the artillery it is now about 159 to 362 in the mounted artillery, and 98 to 348 in the garrison artillery; and if so, whether steps can be taken to remedy the wholesale supersession of artillery subalterns by those in other branches of the service; and whether the Secretary of State for War will consider, in view of the supersession which has taken place, the substitution of a fixed establishment of first lieutenants in the artillery, as was formerly the case as to increased pay, for the present system of three years service in the junior rank.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The figures are approximately correct. As I have previously informed the House the promotion of artillery second lieutenants is receiving consideration in the War Office. But the question is one of considerable difficulty. It is not possible to secure uniformity of promotion in the different branches of the service; but it is recognised that such inequality as exists at present ought to be remedied if possible.

  HIGHLAND MILITIA UNIFORMS.
  MR. WYLIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether all Militia battalions are now practically in the uniforms of their Line battalions, with the exception of the
  168
  Militia battalions of the Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders, the Seaforth Highlanders, and the Black Watch, and if it is now intended to give these battalions the uniforms of their Line battalions, as has been done with the Militia battalions of the Gordon Highlanders and the Cameron Highlanders.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: No Militia except the 3rd Gordon and 3rd Cameron Highlanders have the full dress uniform of their Line battalions. All Militia have now practically the undress uniform of their Line battalions, and it is not proposed to make any change in the clothing of the Highland battalions referred to.

  HONORARY MAJORS OF MILITIA REGIMENTS.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether honorary majors of embodied Militia regiments will be allowed to receive from the date of embodiment the increased pay given by Royal Warrant of 1899 to a captain having higher rank by brevet.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. Honorary rank is given to Militia captains after fifteen years service. Brevet rank is given to a captain for distinguished service in the field or service of an exceptional nature other than in the field. There is no similarity between the two cases.

  OLD SOLDIERS IN BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at the present time there are over eighty old Irish soldiers in the Belfast workhouse; and whether steps will be taken to inquire into these cases with a view to provide any old soldier who may possess a certificate of good conduct with a pension.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Nothing is known of the presence of so many Irish old soldiers in the Belfast workhouse, but the matter shall be inquired into. It must, however, be understood that pensions are given either for long service, for war service on reaching the age of sixty-five, or to soldiers discharged in consequence of disablement incurred in the service. There may be men who

  169
  have passed a portion of their life in the Army, but who fulfil none of these conditions.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: The information was supplied to me by a former Member of this House. Will the Government consider the desirability of providing all old soldiers who have seen active service with a pension?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: That is done in all cases when a man reaches the age of sixty-five, but I cannot hold out any hope that the age limit will be reduced.

  MILITIA COMMISSIONS—EXAMINATIONS.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the regulations issued for the competitive examination of candidates for commissions in the Militia in September next.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir.

  TURKISH NAVAL ARMAMENTS AND BRITISH CONTRACTORS.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BAKTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the representations which Her Majesty's Ambassador was directed to make to the Turkish Government in favour of British manufacturers who have made lower and better tenders for the armament of the Turkish warships than their German rivals have borne fruit, and whether such orders have been given to British firms.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have received no definite information as to who will receive the order for the re-armament of certain Turkish ships. They are aware that a British firm has made an advantageous tender, and representations were made to the Sultan by Her Majesty's Ambassador in the middle of June last urging that offers by British firms should receive fair consideration.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD- BARTLETT: Have these representations been repeated in view of the fact that great political pressure is being brought to bear on behalf of the German firms?

  NORTHERN ASIA MINOR.
  SIR E. ASUMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have formally abandoned large and rich portions of Northern Asia Minor and the Euphrates Valley as spheres of interest for railway construction and commercial development to other great Powers, or have Her Majesty's Government recognised any such spheres of interest, to the exclusion of British manufacture and commerce.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The answer to both questions is in the negative.

  AUSTRALIAN MINTS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has yet been arrived at in the matter of permitting the Australian branches of the Royal Mint to issue gold ingots for exportation.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: From inquiries made at Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth, as well as in London, there appears to be considerable doubt as to how far gold ingots issued from the branch mints in Australia with a mint mark would be in demand. In view of this uncertainty the present time is not considered favourable for introducing a change of such importance pending the establishment of Federal Government.

  FACTORY INSPECTORS' RETURNS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, in the lately issued Factory Inspector's Report, the usual tables of persons employed in the various industries in different parts of the country, based on the Returns made under Section 34 of the Factory Act, 1895, have been omitted; and whether he will now supply this information by way of a Return, or otherwise.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): As I stated in answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean on 15th February, it was necessary to omit the tables referred to if the Chief Inspector's Report was to be issued early, as desired by this House. A fresh Return

  171
  of the numbers employed in factories will be compiled and published in due course, probably with the Chief Inspector's Report for the current year. I propose in future to publish the Return triennially. Its annual preparation involves so much labour as to interfere seriously even with the ordinary work of inspection.

  DIOCESAN REGISTRARS' FEES.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he receives annually from the diocesan registrars statements of the fees received by them, and of the state of their offices, under the 7th and 8th Victoria, chap. 68, and whether such accounts are open to public inspection; and whether, in view of proposed legislation to give a vested interest to diocesan registrars by enabling them to make fresh charges in respect of fees, he will consent to give a Return of the statements received in respect of each diocese during the last three years.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir. Accounts under the statute referred to are received every year in the Home Office. I am not aware that anyone has ever asked to be allowed to inspect them, but I see no reason why inspection should not be allowed, if desired. I think there would be no objection to the Return suggested by my hon. friend, if he likes to move for it.

  RECOVERY OF BODIES FROM THE THAMES.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that the watermen on the Thames receive a pecuniary reward for the recovery from the river of a dead body, but nothing for the rescue of a living body, he will consider the desirability, in the public interest, of making the work of rescue at least as remunerative as that of recovery.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I presume that what the hon. Member calls a reward is the fee of 5s. to which any person is entitled who first gives notice of the discovery of a drowned body to the parish authorities, under a statute of George III., of which the object was to secure the decent burial of cast-
  172
  aways. I cannot credit the suggestion that for the sake of this sum any waterman would deliberately refrain from rescuing a person alive; and I do not propose to take any steps in the direction suggested, though I may mention that the police bring any attempt to save life from drowning (whether successful or not) to the notice of the Royal Humane Society, who make awards in cases where they consider that the circumstances justify recognition.

  VIVISECTION RETURNS.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he explain why the Return of the Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1899 has been withheld until July, 1900, seeing that this delay precludes the possibility of a prosecution based on the facts recorded in that Return being instituted.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The Return has not been withheld, but was presented as soon as the necessary materials could be got together and digested. The date of the issue of the Return has no bearing on the decisions to which I may come on the matters recorded therein.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY-EMPLOYEES' DISPUTE.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade furnished the Press with a copy of his letter of the 26th instant to Mr. Bell, of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, and Mr. Bell's reply thereto; and whether he has communicated since with the Great Eastern Railway Company, and whether the company have replied; and, if so, what is the tenour and the date of that reply, and has it been handed to the representatives of the men and to the press.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The answer to the first question is in the negative. In answer to the second question I have to say that I have had no formal communication with the railway company, and no communication has been made to the press.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Are the company prepared to receive the delegates elected by the men?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid I can add nothing to my answer.

  AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH—DUAL MEMBERSHIP OF STATE AND FEDERAL PARLIAMENTS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether a member of the Legislature of one of the constituent States will be legally entitled to occupy a seat in the Australian Commonwealth Parliament at the same time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): I am informed that the Legislature of South Australia has passed an Act providing that a member of either House of the South Australian Parliament shall, if elected a member of either House of the Commonwealth Parliament, vacate his seat in the South Australian Parliament on taking his seat in the Commonwealth Parliament, and that no member of the latter shall be qualified for nomination or election to either House of the Parliament of South Australia. None of the other colonies have, so far as I know, as yet adopted similar legislation, and therefore there is no impediment in the way of members of the Parliaments of these States becoming also members of the Federal Parliament, provided, of course, that they succeed in getting elected.

  NEW EDUCATION CODE AND HIGHER GRADE SCHOOLS.
  MR. CHANGING: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire, I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education can he state what number of the higher grade schools formerly conducted by school boards and the managers of Voluntary schools have been discontinued since the introduction of the New Code and the Minute providing for the establishment of higher elementary schools; how many applications have been made to the Board of Education for the conversion of higher grade schools into higher elementary schools under the said Minute, and how many applications have been made for permission to create new higher elementary schools under the said
  174
  Minute; and what is now the total number of such higher elementary schools in England and Wales.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The Board of Education are not aware of any such schools having been discontinued. About 190 applications have been made to be recognised under the Minute, most of which were accompanied by an intimation that the managers desired various modifications of the Minute, in order to enable them to comply with some of its terms. No higher elementary schools are yet in existence, nor can be until 1st October, the beginning of the school year.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can state what loans were made by the Museum of Science and Art at South Kensington to centres in Wales during the year 1899.
  SIR J. GORST: 815 objects to two museums, 318 objects to one exhibition, 330 objects to seven art schools and classes, 197 objects to three science schools and classes, making 1,560 objects altogether.

  GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE—FEES.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that until the latter part of 1898 the public were permitted to inspect the indexes kept in the General Register Office at Somerset House for the entry of a particular birth, death, or marriage, and to peruse the entry on payment of 1s., and that such procedure was officially recognised under Regulation 9 of the printed arrangements with regard to searchers and certificates, signed by Sir Brydges P. Henniker, dated March, 1897, and publicly exhibited in the search room at Somerset House; whether this privilege has recently been curtailed, and the fee of 1s. is not now allowed to cover the perusal of the entry of birth, death, or marriage sought for; what is the reason for the present restriction; and whether he will direct that the facilities accorded

  175
  to the public previous to 1898 will be restored.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): For a period prior to the latter part of 1898 the volumes of certified copies were as an act of grace allowed to be seen by applicants, but this concession was found in practice to be open to considerable abuse, and it became necessary to revert to the practice authorised by statute. The statutory fee of 1s. only covers the perusal of the index, and not of the volumes of certified copies.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: What was the abuse?
  MR. HANBURY: The abuse was this, that insurance offices, chiefly, sent their agents to inspect those certified copies with the idea that the 1s. fee which they paid for inspecting the index covered such inspection. Such was not the case. The statute required that a fee of 2s. 6d. in addition should be paid for a certified copy.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Prior to 1898 it was allowed.
  MR. HANBURY: It ought never to have been allowed at all; it was entirely contrary to statute.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: The practice may be disallowed, but it can hardly be called an abuse under the circumstances.

  CUSTOMS BOARD EMPLOYEES' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the conclusions to which he has come in reference to the grievances of different classes of workmen under the Customs Board into which he has personally inquired.
  MR. HANBURY: I have already stated that improved conditions of service will be assured to the more deserving Customs watchers after a certain number of years service. Outdoor officers promoted to the grade of assistants of Customs who did practically the same work in their former post will have that fact recognised by being placed at a higher point in the scale of salary assigned to
  176
  assistants of Customs. The cases of the remaining classes have not yet been finally dealt with, and indeed some have only within the last few days brought the facts before the notice of the Treasury.

  DISTRICT MESSENGER COMPANY.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities decline to renew the licence for the District Messenger Company.
  MR. HANBURY: The company are acting under two instruments. One is a licence under the Telegraph Acts which enables them to erect call-boxes in the houses of their subscribers, and the other is an authority under the Post Office Acts to deliver letters. It was intimated to the company in 1896, when the circumstances of the case were somewhat different, that the Postmaster General, as then advised, would not renew the licence on its expiration. The licence has in any case still three years to run; and, in view of the increased services rendered to the public by the company, the Postmaster General has recently been in communication with the company with the view of considering whether the call-box licence could not be renewed, coupled with some modification in the arrangement as to delivery of letters; and the whole subject is still engaging his attention.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Will the question of reducing the royalty also enter into the consideration?
  MR. HANBURY: I do not think so. We have already reduced the royalty sufficiently.

  EDINBURGH SORTING OFFICE.
  MR. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can now say whether the scheme of revision for the sorting branch of the Edinburgh Post Office, which he stated was under the consideration of the Treasury in March, and on other occasions intimated would be decided very shortly, is likely to be sanctioned before Parliament rises.
  MR. HANBURY: Some of the provisions of the scheme have been sanc-

  177
  tioned, but certain questions relating to the superior appointments proposed are reserved for further consideration.

  THE TRUCK ACTS IN IRELAND.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state what has been the result of the consideration given to a recent judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland on the subject of the applicability of the Truck Acts to knitting, and to the bearing of the matter on the Factory Acts; and what is found to be the effect and extent of the decision.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir. This difficult question is not yet settled. I am to have a conference with the Law Officers on it this afternoon.

  IRISH CHURCH SURPLUS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the exact amount at present of the Irish Church Surplus Fund over the demands now chargeable upon it.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I can only refer the hon. Member to the Treasury Memorandum—House of Commons Paper No. 293, of the Session of 1899—in which this subject was fully discussed. Nothing has happened in the last year to modify materially the figures and conclusions contained in that Paper.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: The Government have been drawing on the fund for other purposes, and I want to know what the value of it is now.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That is a question which cannot be answered. The surplus, whatever it is, is adequate for the purposes for which it is required.

  RIVER BLACKWATER SALMON FISHERIES.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that the secretary of the Viceregal Commission on Salmon Fishing in Ireland, in reply to a communication on behalf of the Mallow Board of Conservators, stated that they would hear no evidence on behalf of the
  178
  upper water proprietors as to the Queen's Gap in the weir on the River Blackwater at Lismore, on the ground that the question of its legality was sub judice; will he explain why, although the engineer to the Mallow Conservators also applied to give evidence about the Lismore weir, without receiving any reply, the Viceregal Commission permitted the agent to the owner of the Lismore weir, and his engineer, to give evidence before them, arguing that the weir was a legal structure; and will any steps be taken to have the views of both sides represented.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The examination of witnesses by the Inland Fisheries Commission is a matter for the consideration of the Commissioners themselves, acting under the powers conferred upon them by their warrant of appointment, and the Government cannot undertake to make representations to them in the direction suggested in the question. Any such representations should be made to the Commissioners direct or through their secretary.

  SLIGO POST OFFICE.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that for five or six years past the Post Office authorities have decided to erect a new post office in Sligo; has a site been secured, and where; and can ho explain the delay in proceeding with the erection of the proposed new post office in Sligo.
  MR. HANBURY: Advertisements for a site for a new post office at Sligo were issued in 1895, but none really suitable were offered. A site in Lower Knox Street and Bridgefoot Street, at a point known as Fish Corner, has now been purchased, and it is hoped that the building will be begun shortly. The delay has been due to the difficulty in finding a suitable site at a cost which the Department would be justified in paying.

  CARRIGULLEN (LEITRIM) POSTAL DELIVERIES.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General,

  179
  whether his attention has been directed to the inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of Carrigullen, South Leitrim, by the failure of the Post Office authorities to provide a mid-day delivery of letters; whether he is aware that the bulk of the Carrigullen letters arrive at Belturbet at 10 a.m., and lie in the post office there till six the next morning; and that a mail car running every day from Carrigullen to Killeshandra would expedite the delivery of these letters by about twenty hours; and what is the objection to such a mail car being provided.
  MR. HANBURY: No representation has reached the Postmaster General from the inhabitants of Carrigullen, but he will cause inquiry to be made whether any arrangement is practicable for affording a mid-day delivery of letters at that place.

  SHANNON AND LIMERICK STEAM SERVICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether ho will inquire if the alleged intention of the Grand Canal Company to discontinue their steamer service between Shannon Harbour and Limerick for the carriage of goods from Dublin and intermediate places to Limerick and vice versa is in any way due to an arrangement between that company and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, or either of them, to further increase the monopoly of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company at Limerick and other places, in case the Amalgamation Bill now before Parliament becomes law; whether he recommends in the general interest that either by an arrangement between the intending railway monopolists, or because of the action of the Irish Board of Works, this competing Canal Company's trade with Limerick should be discontinued; and can he state what steps he proposes to take to protect the public interests in this matter.
  MR. HANBURY: I have made inquiries from the Board of Works, who state that they have no information as to the alleged intention of the Grand Canal Company to abandon the traffic on the river Shannon or as to any such arrangement as that referred to between the
  180
  Grand Canal Company, the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, and the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, or either of them. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. The Board have no knowledge of any danger to the public interest, such as suggested.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: But will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain if the Board of Works are putting any difficulties in the way of trade being continued?
  MR. HANBURY: I answered that question yesterday.

  IRISH RAILWAY AMALGAMATION BILLS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Great Southern and Western, the Waterford and Limerick, and the Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Amalgamation Bill, now before Parliament, does not provide for the establishment of a tribunal, cheap and easy of access in Ireland (other than the Railway and Canal Commissioners), to which Irish traders and passengers can appeal in the event of the Bill becoming law; and will he take steps to provide such a tribunal which can deal with the questions of railway rates, fares and facilities, and other matters which may be in dispute between the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the trading and travelling public in Ireland.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The reply to the first paragraph is the affirmative. If I correctly understand the second paragraph, the hon. Member desires to ascertain whether the Government propose to insert a clause in the Irish Railway Amalgamation Bills now before the House which shall provide for the establishment of a special tribunal to deal with rates and fares on the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland. In that case the answer to this paragraph is in the negative.

  THE POSTMASTER GENERALSHIP.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Lord Londonderry has intimated

  181
  to Lord Salisbury his desire to resign his position of Postmaster General, in order that His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, who has been serving with the Army in South Africa, may, if he so desires, resume that office on his return to England.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have heard nothing of the rumour which appears to have reached the hon. Gentleman. It is a question which can hardly be debated upon the floor of the House.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has it not been repeatedly stated in this House that all employees of public Departments——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Why should an exception be made in favour of Lord Londonderry?

CRUELTY TO WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Oil in Tobacco Bill, with an Amendment; Town Councils (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.
TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 319.]

ASSASSINATION OF THE KING OF ITALY.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have placed on the Notice Paper of the House, in language consecrated by the traditions of this House, some expression of the feeling with which we have received the dreadful news of the assassination of the King of Italy. I do not think the House will desire that I should endeavour to develop at length sentiments which seem to have received adequate expression in the very terms and framework of the resolution. Alas, Sir, we have seen too many of these dastardly crimes of recent years. I can remember in my own Parliamentary experience four other crimes
182
besides the one with which this resolution deals—the assassination of the Emperor of Russia, the assassination of President Garfield, the assassination of the President of the French Republic, and the assassination of the Empress of Austria; and we all have in our minds another attempt, happily unsuccessful, to assassinate the heir to our own Throne. They show how widespread as well as how irrational is this most cruel and most foolish of all forms of public crime. Sir, if anything could add to the feeling of indignation with which the civilised world received the news of yesterday, it is the reflection that the late King of Italy was from his very earliest youth associated with the building up of the independence and liberties of his country. As far back probably as his recollection went, he was nearly concerned in those great events which have produced the Italy of to-day. He never hesitated to risk his life, either in war or in peace, where the interests of his country were concerned, and it does seem to render this great tragedy even more tragic that such a sovereign should be marked out for the assassin's dagger. Sir, the King of Italy was not only a great patriot, but he was a great friend of this country. He and his people have through good report and through ill report been the faithful friends of Britain and of the British Empire, and for that reason we received with even an additional pang of sorrow, even an additional movement of indignation, the sad news of his untimely death. I think, Sir, that I need say no more to commend this Resolution to the unanimous consent of the House. It will be sufficient if I read its terms to express the universal feeling with which I am sure the House will adopt it—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey to Her Majesty the expression of the indignation and deep concern with which this House has learned the assassination of Her Majesty's ally, His Majesty the King of Italy and to pray Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the present King, on the part of her faithful Commons, their abhorrence of the crime, and their sympathy with the Royal Family of Italy, and with the Government and people of that country."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of seconding the motion which

183
has just been made by the Leader of the House. Sir, it is unnecessary for me to add anything to the well-chosen words in which he commended that motion to the acceptance of the House; but I am desirous, at least, of marking the unanimity with which the House agrees in the double sentiment of horror and indignation at the crime that has been committed, and of sympathy with the Royal Family, the Government, and the people of Italy. The friendship, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, between the British people and the Italian people is traditional; it is strong, it is unabated, and we hope and believe it is ineradicable; and while, on the one hand, there is no nation in the world that has taken a more cordial and sustained interest than we have in the creation of the new Italy, of the Italy of unity and independence, at the head of which the gallant house of Savoy has placed itself, on the other hand, we know, as the right hon. Gentleman again has said, that we have no greater well-wishers than we have in Italy, and that the Queen has had no firmer friend or more staunch ally than the monarch whose untimely end we are deploring, and his illustrious father who went before him. For these reasons I claim that the gloom that has fallen on Italy finds an echo in all our hearts, and by this message, simple method as it may appear, we, at least, show that we share to the full the horror and grief with which this abominable outrage has been received throughout the civilised world.
Resolved, nemine contradicente, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey to Her Majesty the expression of the indignation and deep concern with which this House has learned the assassination of Her Majesty's ally, His Majesty the King of Italy, and to pray Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the present King, on the part of her faithful Commons, their abhorrence of the crime, and their sympathy with the Royal Family of Italy, and with the Government and people of that country. —(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of Her Majesty's Household.

WAYS AND MEANS [30TH JULY].
Resolution reported:—
"1. That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and one, sums not exceeding thirteen million pounds may be raised (in addition to any sums already authorised to be raised in the present session) by all or any of the following methods—

(a) by means of the issue of further war stock or war bonds under the War Loan Act, 1900 or

(b) by means of the issue of Treasury bills; or

(c) by means of the issue of Exchequer bonds;

and that the principal of and interest on any money so raised be charged on the Consolidated Fund."
"2. That all expenses incurred in connection with raising the said sums, including any additional remuneration to the Banks of England and Ireland, be charged on the Consolidated Fund."
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James William Lowther, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hanbury.

SUPPLEMENTAL WAR LOAN BILL.
"To provide for raising a Supplemental Loan for the service of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and one," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 318.]

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL
[THIRD READING.]
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
*MR. MENDL: I beg to move that this Bill be recommitted in respect of Clauses 1 and 2. This is a, measure which passed through the Committee stage without amendment of any kind, verbal, technical, or otherwise. It has always seemed to me manifestly impossible for a Bill to be drafted in such a perfect manner as to need no amend-

185
ment of any kind, and, therefore, the forcing of Bills through Committee without alteration appears to me to be a violation of the spirit of the procedure of this House—a violation in respect of which the present Government has attained an unenviable notoriety. If this practice of avoiding the Report stage is to be encouraged, we may as well do away with the Committee stage also, for all the good effect the discussions have. This particular Bill is a very bad instance of this kind of treatment, because on reference to the debate on the Second Reading, which took place on the 21st June, *I find that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Committee of Council on Education promised he would consider any Amendment which was made in Committee, and that the House should have a further opportunity of considering Clause 2 in particular. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that if the House read the Bill a second time he would propose to refer it to the Standing Committee on Law, where the details of the technical clauses could be discussed, and the House, on Report, would have an opportunity of re-considering any matter of principle and giving its final decision. But where is that opportunity? I do not want to refer to the proceedings of the Grand Committee, of which I was not a member, but I understand that the right hon. Gentleman opposed every Amendment that was moved, with the result that the Bill again comes before us in exactly the form in which it was when it was read a second time. I know that on that occasion objection was taken by a large section of the Members to Clauses 1 and 2. The objection to Clause 1, as stated by my hon. friend the Member for the Morley Division of Yorkshire, was that it appeared to be a derogation from the statutory right to free education conferred by the Act of 1891, and made it a matter dependent upon the annual Code. I am told that the effect of passing the Bill in its present shape will be that 60,000 children will be excluded from the right to free education, and that there is a danger that the age up to which the fee grant will be paid will be lowered from fifteen to fourteen. Now, I prefer that if any such changes are to be made they shall be done by Act of Parliament, and not merely be dependent upon the annual
*See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiv., page 667.
186
Code. So far as Clause 2 is concerned, it confers on boards of guardians the right, which they may interpret as a duty, of giving fresh building grants to denominational schools without conferring on them more control over them than they have at present. I know the right hon. Gentleman will say that the object is to enable children who are under the poor law to attend public elementary schools. No doubt that is a very desirable object to achieve, but it ought to be done without placing on boards of guardians the duty of providing further accommodation, where a deficiency exists at the expense of the poor-law ratepayers. That duty ought to be left to the school board, for it might quite well be that the question whether or not a grant should be made to a particular school within the jurisdiction of the poor-law union might become a test question at the election of the board of guardians, and I can conceive nothing more undesirable than that. The effect of this clause is to introduce rate aid in an indirect form, and that is a matter with regard to which the House ought to be very careful. I beg to move.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I will second the motion, because of what occurred in the Grand Committee. There the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Education made a statement to the effect that if any amendment was made in Grand Committee there would be a Report stage to the Bill, and if there was a Report stage the Bill would be lost. I called attention to that statement at the time; it was reported in The Times, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will deny it. On former occasions violent attacks have been made by hon. Members opposite and the Leader of the House on the Grand Committee system, and particularly in regard to a Bill promoted by Irish Members to reform the municipal institutions of Ireland, which passed through Grand Committee without any Amendments. In the case of that Bill, however, an overwhelming majority of the Committee were opinion that no Amendments were necessary. In the case of this Bill, however, not only was the Committee almost exactly equally divided, but the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that at least one Amendment was necessary, and he pledged

187
himself that if it was not made there and then it should be made later on. It seems to me to be a mere fraud on the House of Commons to avoid the report stage by the steps which were taken on that occasion.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the words 'now read the third time,' and add the words ' re-committed in respect of Clauses 1 and 2."—(Mr. Mendl.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'now read the third time' stand part of the Question."
MR. CHANGING: As a member of the Standing Committee, I wish to endorse what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet with regard to the conduct of the business in the Committee. I am in hearty sympathy with the motion made by the hon. Member for Plymouth. It is amply justified on the grounds which have been stated by both the mover and seconder. There is no doubt that these two clauses do raise highly controversial issues. There is no doubt, also, that several suggestions were made in the course of the debate in Committee which were, I may say, airily ignored to a great extent, and certainly were dealt with in a very superficial manner by the right hon. Gentleman. It is not desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should by a side wind effect a change in the law of the land with regard to the right of children to free education, which, in practice at any rate, would restrict that right, or as regards the rights of the community not to have the rates applied in this indirect way to the purposes of denominational education. Upon both of these points many suggestions were made in Committee; and eight or nine divisions were taken. Many of the discussions, indeed, were not pressed to a division. Although I was not present at the moment, I am given to understand that the Vice-President of the Committee of Council did distinctly indicate that there was not to be a Report stage, and that he resisted Amendments on that specific ground.
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): No, no!
MR. CHANNING: Yes; and by so doing he reduced the Committee to a position of absolute Parliamentary impotence which I for one resent, and would have resented had I been present on the occasion. This is not the first time such a policy has been pursued. The same course was adopted with regard to the Voluntary Schools Bill of 1897, in the face of repeated protests. I therefore say I think my hon. friend is amply justified in the course he is now adopting. I hold that this House is entitled to have the Bill re-committed, in order that hon. Members who are interested in it may be afforded an opportunity of discussing several points, and of improving the scope and character of the Bill by the introduction of reasonable Amendments which the tactics of the right hon. Gentleman upstairs prevented the insertion of. This is a typical instance of the way in which this sort of legislation is deliberately forced through Parliament. I hope my hon. friend will press his motion to a division, and thereby enable us to express our condemnation of the policy which has been adopted.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not able to speak from personal observation of what occurred in the Grand Committee. But I must say it is a matter of notoriety that in that Committee every Amendment was refused on the ground that it was desired to avoid the Report stage.
SIR J. GORST: That is not the case. I must contradict the statement. No Amendment was refused on that ground, except one.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have never heard a Member of this House give a denial which was more in concurrence with the statement it was intended to refute. The right hon. Gentleman says that he only refused one Amendment on the ground that its acceptance would make the Report stage necessary. No doubt he did not give the same reason for refusing the other Amendments, but it is perfectly obvious that that was the real reason why all Amendments were rejected. There was the Amendment, for instance, of the hon. Member for Derby.
MR. DRAGE: That is the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted quite enough for my purposes. He has admitted that an Amendment was refused because its acceptance would have necessitated a Report stage. I remember that in the course of the debate on the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill my hon. friend the Member for the Morley Division withdrew an Amendment on the understanding that an opportunity would be afforded of discussing the matter at a later stage. The Bill consequently was allowed to pass without a division. But, in consequence of the tactics which were adopted in the Committee, it has been impossible to deal with the subject of my hon. friend's Amendment, and now the Bill cannot be brought into conformity with the general views of the House. It is scandalous that a non-controversial Bill of this sort should be rushed through in the way it has been done, and if this practice is continued, I venture to assert that the system of Grand Committees of the House will become ineffective for the purpose for which it was created.
SIR J. GORST: Perhaps the House will excuse me for rising so early in the debate, but I do so in order to put before it the real facts, which have been entirely misrepresented by the hon. Member. This Bill was introduced by the Government with the idea that it was entirely non-controversial, but, very much to their surprise, exception was taken to Clauses 1 and 2. The rest of the Bill was comparatively, I might almost say entirely, acceptable. It was practically unopposed. Now what happened in the Grand Committee? It is wholly incorrect to say that Amendments were refused to these two clauses in order that the Report stage might be avoided. A discussion took place upon the clauses, and it was carried on without any pressure being put upon the Committee either by myself or by any other member of the Committee. Amendments were brought forward and the debate lasted a considerable time, and the Amendments were rejected by very large majorities. We then passed to the unopposed clauses, and it was upon one of these that what is known
190
as a drafting Amendment was proposed. As to that I was extremely frank with the Committee. I said plainly that the Amendment ought to be introduced, and I undertook that it should be introduced in another place. The matter was discussed, and by a bare majority the Committee resolved not to put in this technical Amendment at that stage. I certainly did tell it that if the Amendment were inserted there would have to be a Report stage, and that then possibly the Bill might not be passed this session. I also pointed out that this Bill was a very important one from an educational point of view, and I added that it would be a great misfortune if it were to be sacrificed simply with the idea of introducing a drafting Amendment. But I repeat that Clauses 1 and 2 were practically under discussion a whole day. No doubt there is a principle involved in them, but the House has an opportunity now of discussing that question of principle, and I am quite prepared to discuss it with them again. What is the object of Clause 1? Grants to elementary schools are now given for average attendance. This is calculated according to the Code for Parliamentary grant, and also for fee grant. The actual experience of the Department has convinced everybody that it is inconvenient to have the Parliamentary grant calculated in two different ways. I will give the Committee an illustration of how the necessity for this amending clause has arisen. Rural schools applied to Parliament to be allowed to calculate average attendance upon the best 400 openings in the year—200 in the morning and 200 in the evening. A snowstorm, or thunderstorm, or some other accidental cause, might prevent a considerable proportion of the children attending, and that would seriously affect the managers by reducing their grant. The only alternative was to send home the few children who did put in an appearance. Hence the application that they should be allowed to open the school without necessarily counting it as a school day. The Department found that by the Act of 1891 they were estopped from granting the wish of the rural schools, and they put Clause 1 into this Bill to carry it out. The hon. Member says that the payment of the fee grant according to the Code in existence in 1891 will deprive a number of children of the statutory right of free education. It will do nothing

191
of the kind. There has been no change whatever made in the Code which will deprive any child of any right, and I do not think it likely any Minister for Education will ever attempt such a thing. Clause 2 is to enable boards of guardians to make arrangements for children under their control, instead of being taught separately in workhouse schools, to attend the ordinary elementary schools of the country, and to pay for them such an amount as is reasonable, having regard to the amount of instruction given. Some hon. Member has discovered that this provision will enable Voluntary schools to be assisted out of the rates, but that can only be if the guardians pervert the powers given them under the clause to purposes to which they are not intended to apply. Having regard, therefore, to the great benefits which this provision will undoubtedly bestow on poor-law children, I hope the clause to which objection has been discovered in such an ingenious manner will be accepted, and that the House will consent to give this Bill a Third Reading, because it is a measure which, on the whole, will be a very great advantage to the education of the country.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not propose to enter into the controversy as to what happened in Committee. One thing seems to be perfectly clear, and that is that the right hon. Gentleman did use the argument about the Report stage. I have been looking at the official report of the proceedings in Committee, and I find that the right hon. Gentleman used the argument just before the very first division in which the position of the Government was imperilled. The Ayes in that division were 9 and the Noes 10. My hon. friend the Member for West Nottingham voted with the Government in that division in response to an appeal from the right hon. Gentleman. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that he only used his argument about the Report stage on one Amendment; but he used it on the very first opportunity in which it was useful to him, and he got the Bill through by that device. Unfortunately this is not the only Education Bill that has been passed through this House in a similar manner. We have another Bill, regarding which it was admitted that it could be strengthened on several points; but it was carried through with all its
192
imperfections on its head, simply because the First Lord of the Treasury wanted to save a few days of Parliamentary time, and I think he is primarily responsible for the position in which the Vice-President now finds himself. There are several clauses in this Bill which are exceedingly useful, and that is why my hon. friend did not move the rejection of the Bill, but confined his opposition to the two first clauses. On the whole it is an admirable Bill, but the two first clauses introduce principles of a very pernicious character. I think the House ought to protest against the growing practice of withdrawing Bills from its cognisance, because that is what it really means. I do not really remember a Parliament in which the power of the Cabinet has grown so enormously as in the present Parliament. We have Bills drafted by Committees of the Cabinet, and then the House of Commons is asked to reject or to accept them in order to save time, and little or no opportunity is given for their consideration. The Party system is brought into requisition, and all opposition is squashed. I think the House of Commons, in the interests of its own dignity and usefulness, ought to put an end to this system. With regard to the merits of my hon. friend's Amendment, I shall only say that I think the Vice-President has rather minimised the effect of the second clause. Will the House kindly consider for a moment what is proposed to be done. A principle is to be introduced in connection with the elementary education of this country which has never been introduced before. It is proposed that boards of guardians shall, if necessary, contribute the bulk of the expense of building and maintaining schools which may belong to one denomination, and may be under the management of the minister of that denomination, without any provision whatever for any control proportionate to the amount of the rate aid. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what would be the position, supposing the guardians, having contributed the bulk of the money towards building a school, found that afterwards, for some reason or other, the children had to be withdrawn from it, because, perhaps, the position of the workhouse had to be altered? That happens frequently, and the result will be that, as far as the guardians are concerned, that school will be of no further use to them

193
although money out of the rates was invested in it. I would ask what provision there is in this Bill to enable boards of guardians to withdraw their money in such a case. The guardians would have no vestige of interest in the property, and the result would be that the whole of their money would be handed over to the funds of one religious denomination. I think we have a right to protest against that. The right hon. Gentleman has gone further than even the advocates of the Voluntary schools. The hon. Member for Stroud and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich have admitted that if rate aid were given to Voluntary schools there would then be a case for local control; but in this Bill the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give rate aid without a vestige of local control. I think we ought to protest against the introduction of that principle; it is an unfair one, and therefore I am glad that my hon. friend has given us an opportunity of protesting against it. The right hon. Gentleman said that this matter had already been threshed out, but this is the first opportunity the House has had of pronouncing on this particular point as to whether we are going to give local aid to these schools without local control.
MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: The rule by which when a Bill has passed through Committee without alteration it need not be considered on the Report stage is one which seems to me to act very well if the Committee to which a Bill is referred is a Committee of the whole House, but when that rule is extended to the Standing Committees on Law and Trade it works this injustice—it prevents over 600 Members of this House from being in a position to move any Amendment to such a Bill. I therefore sincerely hope that next session the Standing Order may be modified so far as to remove that injustice. I go further and say that if we were more remote from the end of the session, although I heartily approve of the Bill, yet, as I feel that a hardship is being committed, I would vote with the hon. Member opposite in favour of committing this Bill, as a protest against the injustice of the Standing Order of the House; but, having regard to what seems to me to be the great merit of the Bill—namely, the enormous advantage of taking away
194
from children that brand with which they are now labelled when educated in workhouse schools, and for enabling them to receive education equally with other children in public elementary schools—I feel that the game is not worth the candle, and as we are told that if any step is taken at this period of the session to delay the progress of the Bill it may have to be thrown over, I do not feel able to fight against the Standing Order on this occasion.
MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.): Like the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I think the Bill contains more useful than mischievous provisions, and, personally, I should be very sorry if those useful provisions were not carried, because I think they will effect a very desirable amendment in the law. But the motion of my hon. friend does not in the least involve that result. All he asks is that the Bill should be re-committed in respect to the first and second clauses. I myself attended the meetings of the Standing Committee, and I must say I entirely concur with the motion, and I think it is one which the House ought to accept. A very important principle in connection with our procedure is involved. On the Second Reading the discussion ranged very largely over details, and what was certainly understood then was that the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to satisfy the objections that had been raised. When the Bill came before the Committee, what happened? Amendments were moved with the effect of trying to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman the fulfilment of that assurance, but those Amendments were steadily voted down by the representatives of the Government, with the effect of avoiding the necessity for a Report stage. I am not altogether prepared to agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, because I think that even when a Bill has passed through Committee of the whole House, such a course as was taken in connection with this Bill is neither justifiable nor necessary. Let me give one illustration. On the second clause an Amendment was moved the object of which was to secure some kind of representation, when the board of guardians made a contribution, in the management of the schools. This Amendment was defeated by 10 to 9. The result is that the vote of a single

195
Member of this House out of 670 defeated the Amendment, and even that hon. Member was in favour of the principle of the Amendment.
SIR J. GORST: No; you are mistaken there.
MR. ASQUITH: It does not matter. The illustration stands quite as good, for the fact remains that, as regards an important Amendment, the vote of a single Member prevented the alteration of the Bill in Committee and precluded any part of the Bill being discussed when it came here at a subsequent stage. It is really upon that point, raising as it does a most important question of Parliamentary procedure, that I hope the hon. Gentleman will press his Amendment to a division.
*MR. YOXALLOn the day when the Committee discussed the Amendment on Clause 2, the First Lord of the Treasury made his statement as to the progress of business for the rest of the session, and that statement involved a rather ominous reference to the Elementary Education Bill. Following that, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President told the Committee, with great and refreshing frankness, that if that Amendment was carried it would mean probably the loss of the Bill. Now, that particular Amendment was of very slight importance in itself. It was to insert a few words that ought to have been inserted by the draughtsman, to extend to the bye-laws under the Education Act the same improvement as to the increase of age as the Bill was about to make in regard to the Act itself, and it was promised that the alteration should be made during Committee stage in another place. He supported the motion now before the House to recommit the Bill as regarded Clauses 1 and 2. Both at the Second Beading of the Bill and in the Standing Committee he took the view that Clauses 1 and 2 required amendment and that safeguards should be provided, and he could not accept the statement the right hon. Gentleman had given that afternoon in regard to Clause 2. If Clause 1 passed it would be possible for a foolish President of the Board of Education to place on the Table for thirty days a Minute reducing the maximum age in respect to elementary education in the schools; and a lax House
196
and a lethargic public opinion outside might allow it to pass, though that was a conjunction of circumstances not likely to occur. But in regard to Clause 2, for the first time in the history of the country it would be possible to apply money levied upon the ratepayers to an elementary school not the property of the ratepayers and not under their management. It came to this, as he had ventured to say in the Standing Committee, that it was their old friend the thin edge of the wedge, of rate aid in favour of Voluntary schools. It would have been proper if in the Standing Committee the Amendment had been carried as it was discussed. He voted for it then, and he could not do other than vote that afternoon that the Bill be recommitted in respect of that clause. The remainder of the Bill was of great value, but he felt that they ought to have their consciences clear on the application, without safeguards, of the ratepayers' funds to schools not the property of the public.
*MR. TALBOTdid not think that the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman was very important. A more important point had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife. The management of Voluntary schools seemed to haunt the mind of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham, and he appeared to wish to put the ratepayers to the necessity of providing other schools for the education of pauper children. A larger portion of the wedge had already been inserted, because they had allowed boards of guardians to send children to industrial schools and other schools which were conducted on strictly denominational lines, and on the management of which the ratepayers had no representation. They should trust to the common sense of the managers of the Voluntary schools. If there was suspicion of proselytising, it was quite right to introduce safeguards; but if the management of those schools as it really existed was looked at, the hon. Gentleman need not be afraid of the danger which he professed to express. His experience was, that this danger of religious teaching was one of the bugbears which existed in the House of Commons, but which disappeared altogether in the air outside. He passed from that to the rather more important

197
matter referred to—the procedure on Bills referred to Standing Committees. He did not believe in the practice of hustling Bills through towards the end of the session. It was not a very dignified or decorous procedure. But it must be admitted, on the other hand, that sometimes the opponents of a Bill had almost forced the practice—undignified though it was—upon the Members of the Government who were not dealing with measures of first rate importance, but were very anxious, from the Departmental point of view, to get their Bills through at the end of the session. For what had happened? When Bills had been discussed at moderate length both in the House and upstairs, and Amendments had been moved by the opponents of the Bill, all these matters were raised again on the Report stage. The result was a double dose of opposition. Now a double dose of opposition might be all right on matters of cardinal importance, and if there was time, but when they came to a Bill of only Departmental importance—a Bill like this that was going to do a great deal of good to the elementary education of some of the most neglected children in the country, and therefore the most deserving of our attention—and the choice was presented of letting the Bill get through Parliament with tolerable facility at the end of the session, or to run the guantlet of a double dose of opposition, and therefore the chance of being lost—he thought his right hon, friend would have been almost more than human not to resist the Report stage if he could help it. One word more. The Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Derby, referred to by the hon. Gentleman, was one of importance, and with that he cordially sympathised. It was an Amendment which raised large and most important questions. But it was better to wait some other chance of carrying it than imperil the Bill which they all desired. The subject of the Amendment should be taken up by the Education Board, and not left in the hands of a private Member. He trusted, as he had said in the Standing Committee, that it would now be considered a matter of honourable obligation by both political parties, to rescue little children who were attending school from the burden of hard work outside school, to which too many of them were now subject.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the debate, but he wished to emphasise the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall. The procedure adopted had deprived the House of an opportunity of moving any Amendments at any stage of the Bill. What had taken place on this, and on one or two previous occasions, was never contemplated and never discussed before the House when the Standing Committees were appointed. The House was always very careful how it parted with its authority, and what had happened in Grand Committee was that Amendments had been made, and consequently there had been no Report stage. There were circumstances, no doubt, which would justify the Government and a weary House in assenting to anything which would get a Bill out of the way, and bring the session to a close, but they should apply never to private Members' Bills, and only occasionally to Government measures; but the House having seen fit to extend this powerful weapon to private Members' Bills it should at all events reserve to itself the power of supervising the decisions of the Standing Committees. In this instance it was by one vote that the House of Commons had been deprived of the opportunity of fully discussing and considering the Bill. Standing Committees were very good so far as they went, but he was satisfied that their operation could not be much longer continued without drastic changes, both in reference to quorum divisions and the subsequent submitting of the decisions to the House.
MR. DRAGEsaid reference had been made more than once to his Amendment, but the Amendment upon which the discussion had arisen he was not responsible for. He was, however, pleased the discussion had been raised, because it had afforded them the opportunity of obtaining from the Government on the floor of the House a repetition of the pledge that the abuses in regard to wage-earning children would be the subject of an inquiry by an Inter-departmental Committe, and that legislation on the matter would be introduced at the commencement of next session.
MR. ELLIS J. GRIFFITH: The right hon. Gentleman gave us an assurance that these words should be introduced in another place. Will he now say whether he intends that the Amend-
ment shall be introduced in the House of Lords?
Question put.
The House divided: —Ayes, 137; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 252.)
MR. ELLIS J. GRIFFITH: I have now to repeat my question to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he intends to fulfil the pledge he gave to the Committee as to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Derby. He, I understand, gave a pledge that the words would be inserted when the Bill goes to another place.
SIR J. GORST: I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman is justified in asking a question of that kind with the implication that I am not going to fulfil the pledge which I have given. [Mr. GRIFFITH: Oh, no.] The manner and tone in which the hon. Member asked the question certainly bore that construction. I can only say that I am generally in the habit of fulfilling such pledges as I give, and in regard to this pledge it is the intention of my noble friend the Lord President to introduce an Amendment in another place.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I think this Bill ought not to be allowed to pass without one final word being said as to the way the House of Commons has been treated throughout in regard to those Bills relating to elementary education. We all remember that a previous Bill dealing with an important subject was introduced, and this House was absolutely denied the right of discussing the Bill on its Report stage. Now we have another Elementary Education Bill, and we have heard the way in which it has been treated upstairs. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have admitted that the practice that has arisen is constitutionally a most dangerous one. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House in his
202
place. I wish he could have heard from beginning to end—and that is my chief reason for rising—the discussion that took place on the motion to re-commit the Bill. I wish he could have heard the expressions of opinion from those on both sides of the House as to the manner in which the House of Commons is being treated in regard to this Bill. Here are 600 Members who have absolutely no right whatever to discuss the details of the Bill and move necessary Amendments to it. I may venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government had plenty of time to carry this Bill through the House in a proper way. We have had our holidays extended, and there never has been in this century such a lazy Parliament as the one now drawing to its close. The right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench have had comparatively little opposition, and I think it is extremely hard that in the case of a Bill of this kind, in which a large number of people are interested, their representatives should not have the right to move the necessary Amendments in this House. When Amendments are moved they are rejected upon the ground that this House must be prevented at all cost from expressing its opinion on the Bill in detail. This is a most dangerous practice, and therefore at the eleventh hour I venture to say one word of protest against it. We admit that there is much in the Bill that is valuable and useful, but we also assert that there are the potentialities of mischief in the Bill, which ought to be guarded against. We have had no opportunity whatever of guarding against these possibilities of mischief, and I can only deplore the course the Government have seen fit to pursue in this matter.

VOLUNTEERS BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered.
*MR. C. P. SCOTT: The object of the proviso which I desire to move is to make it necessary that within ten days of calling out the Volunteers Parliament shall be summoned. That provision already applies in the case of the Reserve forces. Under Clause 13 of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, it is necessary that Parliament should be called together within ten days of the calling out of the Reserve forces, and the words of the clause I have put down are taken from that Act. It is true that no such provision is contained in the Volunteers Act, and it has never been necessary that Parliament should be called together when the Volunteers were called out. If the Volunteers Act remained as it has been hitherto there would be no necessity for a clause of this kind; but that Act is being very greatly changed by the Bill now before us, and the conditions under which the Volunteers may be called out are enormously extended. Instead of being perfectly definite they have become very indefinite, so that it is quite impossible for anybody to say exactly under what conditions in future Volunteers may not be called out. Under these circumstances it seems to me that the provision which was found necessary in the case of the Reserve forces is at least as necessary in the case of the Volunteers. The Under Secretary of State for War, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, referred to this matter. He spoke of the provision in the Reserve Forces Act as being to some extent unnecessary, and he appeared to think it was a sort of sacrifice on the altar of Whig traditions. I do not think that at all, and I do not believe anybody, at any rate on this side of the House, would think it right that the Reserve forces should be called out without Parliament being summoned. Nobody will dispute the
234
gravity of the circumstances which alone would justify the calling out of the Volunteers. The Under Secretary has stated that within the first month of calling out the Volunteers the cost to the country would be at least £3,000,000. On the ground of cost alone it is necessary that Parliament should be called together very speedily. The main ground on which I advocate this provision is that the terms of the Bill as it stands are extremely vague, and when a grave step of this kind is taken, the least you can do is to call Parliament together within the shortest time practicable. It may be alleged, on the other hand, that Parliament, in any case, would be called together, because you will not call out the Volunteers until you have called out the Reserve forces, and when you do that you will be obliged to call Parliament together. The effect of that argument is to show that this provision would be superfluous, but I am not at all sure that it is superfluous. It is conceivable that the Reserve forces might have already been called out, and that Parliament might have been called together in accordance with the Act, and might have adjourned. It is not true to say that we have perfect security as things stand. The Under Secretary for War, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, spoke of the unnecessary scruples of Parliament in introducing this provision in the Reserve Forces Act, and he said that provision was introduced to meet dangers which, to a large extent, were illusory. He said that those dangers were killed and buried by our ancestors nearly 200 years ago, and he went on to say that if anyone wished to perform ceremonial rites over their graves he should have no objection to them moving to insert an Amendment. I therefore hope that the Under Secretary will accept this Amendment, in accordance with the undertaking which he gave us in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'emergency,' to insert the words, 'Provided always, that whenever Her Majesty directs the calling out of the Volunteer forces for actual military service, if Parliament be then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within ten days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet

235
and sit upon the day appointed of such proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.'"—(Mr. C. P. Scott.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I venture to hope that the hon. Gentleman, on the part of the Government, will accept this Amendment, and I hope with greater confidence because of those words which my lion, friend has just quoted in which the Under Secretary for War practically expressed his willingness to accept an Amendment of this kind if it were pressed upon him. As a matter of common practical experience, it is desirable to have some limitation upon the power of calling out the Volunteers involved in a question of actual invasion, that there should be some check placed upon any wantonness or inconsiderateness in using this power of calling out the Volunteers, and that check is naturally to be found in the necessity of calling Parliament together. As my hon. friend has pointed out, after all, that is no inconvenience to the authorities or the Executive, because when they decide to call out the Volunteers they must have previously embodied the Militia and called out the Reserves. There is no reason why we should not have in this Bill, as a necessary safeguard, the stipulation which has been found to be necessary in the case of the other forces mentioned. I think the hon. Member, even if he regards it as superfluous, may very well accept it, and I hope he will, in view of what he said on the Second Reading, allow this Amendment to be inserted in the Bill.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Leader of the Opposition has said that on the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed my willingness to accept an Amendment of this character, but I should have thought that unwillingness would have been a more accurate description of the tone of my remarks on that subject. I do not think the criticisms which have been made have been addressed to the difficulties which we should have to face should any occasion arise for the calling out of the Volunteers. I stated in a previous speech that in
236
former times the nation was jealous of such power because they feared it might be used to restrict the liberties of the people, and they feared the standing armies of William III. and George II. because the existence of such armies might entangle them in continental quarrels. But that fear existed in respect of standing armies which they thought could be used to put down the liberties of the people or might be used on the continent of Europe. The Volunteers could not be used for either one or the other purpose. They could not be used for restricting the liberties of the people, and they could not be removed from our shores. This is not a practical Amendment, and I would urge upon the hon. Member who has moved it, and upon the Leader of the Opposition, that if this Amendment has any effect, that effect will not be the one which they seek, but just the opposite. The introduction of this Amendment into the Bill will cast doubt upon what I claim to be the fact, that this Act does not alter in any degree the purpose for which the Volunteer forces exist. The Volunteer forces exist to repel invasion, and all that we ask for is that words should not be put into the mouth of the Sovereign, which would be extremely inconvenient during a great crisis. The fact that the Volunteers exist only to repel invasion remains as true when this Bill is passed as it was before. It would cost £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 to call out the Volunteers of this country, and a fortnight's pay, without all the appurtenances and munitions of war, has cost the country £750,000 this summer. Therefore, I think it is idle to pretend that any Government will call out the Volunteers under these circumstances except in the case of an apprehended invasion, and they could not be called out for any other purpose. Then said the Leader of the Opposition, there are no inconveniences could attach to the acceptance of such an Amendment. That is precisely what the Amendment would do, for it would create inconvenience. It would lay down at a time when every department is overstrained to meet a great crisis that Parliament is to meet upon, say, a Wednesday instead of upon a Friday or Wednesday week. It would have just that effect and nothing more. You could not call out the Volunteers to repel an invasion, because this proposal would lay down that Parlia-

237
ment should meet on that day ten days. I think that would be a very inconvenient provision to add to the many difficulties with which the Executive Government would have to cope upon such an occasion. I must therefore ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment, and I cannot admit that I am bound to accept it by my speech on the Second Heading. I think I have always been careful to observe and fulfil any undertakings which I have given, but I did in that speech all I could to induce the House to accept the Bill which I brought in. The House did not accept that Bill. There must be give and take in these matters, and having given more than my pound of flesh, perhaps I may be allowed to take the sense of the House upon my right to resist this Amendment.
MR. CALDWELLsaid the words proposed were exactly the same as those in the Reserve Forces Act, and the Amendment proposed to take exactly the same procedure. The Under Secretary seemed to think that it was an extraordinary thing when the Volunteers wore called out that Parliament should be called together within ton days, but that was the very provision in the case of calling out the Reserve forces. Did anyone imagine that they were going to call out the Volunteers in a great emergency without having first called out the Reserve forces? Such a thing was inconceivable. Having discarded the words "actual invasion" and adopted "imminent national danger," all they were asked by this Amendment was that when they did call out the Volunteers they should call Parliament together in the very same way as they were bound to do when they called out the Reserve forces. He could not understand why those words should be objected to. It was all very well to say that the Volunteers could not be sent out of the country; but in the event of a national danger an Act could be passed in one single night to call out the Volunteers, because Parliament could do anything. Those who seem to think that the Volunteers only existed to defend this country were mistaken, because Parliament could pass an Act to-morrow to send the Volunteers abroad if necessary. If they did call out the Volunteers it ought to be necessary that they should call Parliament together, and he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid the hon. Member had already told them that it was impossible to call out the Volunteers until the Reserves had been called out. Therefore if the Reserves were called out first Parliament would be called together, and therefore there was no necessity for the Amendment.
MR. CALDWELLsaid his point was that they should not give power to call out the Volunteer forces without first calling Parliament together.
MR. TOMLINSONpointed out that when the Reserves were called out Parliament would have to be called together, and this was necessary because they would have to vote the money.
*MR. CHAININGsaid he had listened with much surprise to the reply of the Under Secretary for War. It seemed to him that the whole effect of that reply was to minimise the usefulness of the measure which was now before Parliament. He wished to speak seriously of these proposals, and it seemed to him that if this Bill meant anything at all it meant that the whole question of making the Volunteers a useful defensive force implied that they must treat them as a whole by some definite method, and not as more machinery for obtaining recruits for the Regular Army at a time of emergency. That was not the way to treat them if the Volunteers were to be considered as a serious force for the defence of the country. The change in the words was undoubtedly a very serious one, for it placed power in the hands of the Ministry to call out the Volunteers upon a wholly different footing. To have the power of calling out 250,000 men absolutely at the disposal of the Ministry without any constitutional check such as they had under the Reserve Forces Act seemed to him to be illogical, inconsistent, and unconstitutional. If the Volunteers were to be called out simply for filling up the ranks of the Regular Army, why not say so? He disputed altogether the advisability of placing such a force without any constitutional check at the disposal of the Ministers of the Crown. This was a very serious constitutional question, and he must say that he did not think it had been disposed of by the arguments of the Under Secretary for War. If the hon. Gentleman considered

239
that point and the vast importance of treating the Volunteers as an organised army for home defence, and not a mere feeding ground for the Regular Army, he would see that it was necessary that we should have some constitutional check with regard to this matter, such as was provided in the case of the Reserve forces.
*MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I wish to interpose with a few words in support of this Amendment. I think this proposal is a very reasonable one, and one which ought to be accepted by the Government. The change in the words of the Act of 1863 in reference to the calling out of the Volunteers from "actual or apprehended invasion" to "imminent national danger or great emergency" is a great change, and one which the House of Commons is entitled, as the representatives of the people, to know the reason why. There is a remarkable change going on in public opinion in reference to the question of war, and upon the question whether Parliament has any control whatever over the declaration of war or over the policy of the Government. I have here a very eminent authority which I wish to quote, because in former years it was considered by some Members of the House that Parliament should have some knowledge or should be consulted before even a declaration of war took place. We all know that that is a power given to the Crown upon the advice of the Ministers, and Parliament is not even consulted when war is declared. In 1878 I find that when the Afghan War took place the Opposition at that time took a very strong line of action against that war, and the official section of the Liberal party put up Mr. Whitbread to move a resolution in condemnation of that war; and what do I find? I find in reading this debate † that no less an authority than the present Colonial Secretary moved an Amendment or put down an Amendment to that motion which was moved by Mr. Whitbread. It was quite in harmony with the Amendment now moved by the lion. Member for Leigh. We all know that the Colonial Secretary changes his views so often that to quote them will not have much influence with the House of Com-
† See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. ccxlix., p. 176.
240
mons. The Amendment moved by Colonial Secretary was—
"That this House regrets that in the present instance the consent of the nation through its representatives in this House was not obtained before war was declared."
That was the Amendment moved by the Colonial Secretary to the official Amendment condemning the policy of the war which led up to the outbreak of war in Afghanistan in 1878. The official motion was not strong enough for the Colonial Secretary, and ho put down this Amendment, which, I am sorry to say, was ruled out of order, but it showed the intention of the Colonial Secretary, and anyone who reads his speech will find that it was a strong condemnation of the Government for declaring war in 1878 without the consent of Parliament and without their knowledge. I think hon. Members are quite justified in asking that before the Volunteers are called out Parliament should be summoned, and that we should understand the policy of the Government. I thought it right to call attention to the remarkable declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary in 1878, because what was his policy then in this matter should be his policy now. I strongly support my hon. friend.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid the Government wore applying to the Volunteer force the same conditions as were applied to the Militia and the Reserve forces. The wording was identical, and it was only rational for the outside observer to suppose that if these conditions were applied to what was the third line of defence, the same precautions would be adopted with regard to a force which would only be required on certain occasions of grave emergency. Since October the Reserves had been called out and the embodiment of the Militia hail been enforced, and if during the recess circumstances arose which necessitated the calling up of the Volunteers it was not unreasonable to suggest that Parliament should insist upon the same precautions being taken with regard to them as had been taken with regard to the other forces. He could not see that that would unduly fetter the action of the Executive which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary was so jealous to guard.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 58; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 253.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cy of Lond.

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

Morrison, James A. (Wilts.,S.)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Balcarres, Lord

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo.'s

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Banbury, Frederick George

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Barnes, Frederic Gorrell

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Beach, Rt. Hn.Sir M. H. (Bristol

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Bethell, Commander

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Bigwood, James

Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

Richards, Henry Charles

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Bond, Edward

Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Brassey, Albert

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon St. John

Howard, Joseph

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Round, James

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Seely, Charles Hilton

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Lafone, Alfred

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'e

Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'dUniv.

Crilly, Daniel

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Thornton, Percy M.

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Lowe, Francis William

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Curzon, Viscount

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Usborne, Thomas

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Macaleese, Daniel

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Drage, Geoffrey

Macdona, John Gumming

Welby,Lt. -Col. A. C E(Taunt'n

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Wharton, Rt. Hon.JohnLloyd

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

M'Killop, James

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r

Malcolm, Ian

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Finch, George H.

Marks, Henry Hananel

Wylie, Alexander

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

Wyndham, George

Fisher, William Hayes

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Flower, Ernest

Middlemore, John T.

Fox, Dr. Francis Joseph

Molloy, Bernard Charles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Garfit, William

Monckton, Edward Philip

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Gedge, Sydney

Monk, Charles James

NOES.

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

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fenwick, Charles

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Burt, Thomas

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Caldwell, James

Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

Baker, Sir John

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Channing, Francis Allston

Harwood, George

Billson, Alfred

Colville, John

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Birrell, Augustine

Dewar, Arthur

Hazell, Walter

Blake, Edward

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Donelan, Captain A.

Hogan, James Francis

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Doogan, P. C.

Holland, William Henry

Brigg, John

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Horniman, Frederick John

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Duckworth, James

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Jones,(Carnarvonshire.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Spicer, Albert

Labouchere, Henry

O'Dowd, John

Strachey, Edward

Langley, Batty

O'Malley, William

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Lewis, John Herbert

Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

Tennant, Harold John

Lloyd-George, David

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Wallace, Robert

M'Arthur, Willaim (Cornwall

Pickard, Benjamin

Walton, J. Lawson, (Leeds, S.)

M'Ewan, William

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim

Power, Patrick Joseph

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Price, Robert John

Wills, Sir William Henry

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Priestley, Briggs

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

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Wilson, John (Govan)

Morgan, W Pritcbard (Merthyr

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Hud'rsf'ld

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)

Woods, Samuel

Moss, Samuel

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Yoxall, James Henry

Moulton, John Fletcher

Scott, Chas. Prestwich(Leigh)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

O'Malley, William

Asher, Alexander

Duckworth, James

Pickersgill, Edware Hare

Atherley-Jones, L.

Emmott, Alfred

Power, Patrick Joseph

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Fenwick, Charles

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Billson, Alfred

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

Griffith, Ellis J.

Runciman Walter

Brigg, John

Hazell, Walter

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarsh.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burt, Thomas

Holland, William Henry

Strachey, Edward

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Horniman, Frederick John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Caldwell, James

Langley, Batty

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

MacDonnell, Dr.M.A.(Q'n'sC.

Tully, Jasper

Cawley, Frederick

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

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

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Kenna, Reginald

Woods, Samuel

Colville, John

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Yoxall, James Henry

Crilly, Daniel

Moss, Samuel

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Dewar, Arthur

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Mr. Scott, and Mr. Jonathan Samuel.

Donelan, Captain A.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Doogan, P. C.

U'Dowd, John

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Nicol, Donal Ninian

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Gibbs, Hon. A.G.H. (C.of Lond.

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Purvis, Robert

Balcarres, Lord

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Richards, Henry Charles

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Big wood, James

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Round, James

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Win.

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

Butcher, John George

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. (Birm.

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Chamberlain. J Austen (Worc'r

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

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

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Jessel, Captain Herbort Merton

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kimber, Henry

Strauss, Arthur

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(C'rn.

Thornton, Percy M.

Colston, Chas. Edwd H Athole

Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Curzon, Viscount

Lowe, Francis William

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Whiteley, H (Ashton-under-L.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Lucas-Snadwell, William

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Donkin, Richard Sim

Macdona, John Cumming

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

M'Killop, James

Wrightsen, Sir Thomas

Drage, Geoffrey

Marks, Henry Hananel

Wylie, Alexander

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Wyndham, George

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r

Middlemore, John T.

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Finch, George H.

Monckton, Edward Philip

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Fisher, William Hayes

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Flower, Ernest

Muntz, Philip A.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Garfit, William

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

CAPTAIN SINCLAIRwas not sanguine of obtaining more favourable consideration for his Amendment than had been accorded to the one which preceded it. Still, as the first clause of the Bill imposed greater obligations on the Volunteer force, and as it had always been the practice heretofore where obligations were
242
increased to insert certain provisos, it was only right to insert one in this case. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 8, after the word 'emergency,' to insert the words, 'provided always, that nothing in this section shall apply with-

243
out his consent to a man enrolled in any corps of Volunteers at the passing of this Act.'"—(Captain Sinclair.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had urged, without success apparently, that this change laid no increased obligation upon the Volunteers. Of course it was a matter of opinion, but that was the opinion which he had formed. At the first blush there was a case for the Amendment, and he confessed that at one time he was in favour of some such provision as that proposed. The suggestion was, however, very carefully considered during the drafting of the Bill, and upon the whole it was felt that the objections to it outweighed the arguments in its favour. There was one fatal objection to the Amendment—namely, that it would divide, possibly for ten, fifteen, or eighteen years, the Volunteers into two sections.
MR. C. P. SCOTTthought it was perfectly obvious, in spite of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, that this change did increase the obligations of the Volunteer force. The whole difficulty might be got over by obtaining the consent of the men themselves, which would be obtained to the extent of ninety-nine out of every hundred. But to lay an increased obligation upon them without their consent was most reprehensible.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. WYNDHAM: In accordance with the promise I gave on a former occasion, I propose to move this Amendment. It was argued for some time in Committee that it would never do to enumerate all the places where Volunteers might be employed, and it would not do to attempt to define the exact type of Volunteer who might be employed. The Amendment I now move will, I think, meet the case.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 12, after the word 'time,' to insert the words 'for the purposes of coast defence.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANdid not think the Amendment did actually all that was asked, but he confessed he could not suggest a better form.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

COMPANIES BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  *MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid he did not think they ought to pass the Third Reading of the Bill without a few remarks to show what the position of the law would be, unless it was altered in some respects in another place. The Bill came on so suddenly after it had passed through the Grand Committee that there had not been time to propose new clauses. Copies of the Bill, printed as amended, were not in their hands until Monday morning, and the Bill came on in the House on Tuesday. The Bill, no doubt, was exceedingly well intended, and he hoped it would do more good than he was afraid would be the case; but he hoped the Government in another place would take some stops to correct the difficulties, obscurities, and mistakes which were still to be found in it. The object of the Bill was to safeguard intending investors; but, while shareholders were looked after almost in a grandmotherly way, those who took debentures were supposed to be capable of taking care of themselves, and were left in rather an awkward position. There were certain requirements provided for in the Bill which were thought to be necessary for the protection of the public. If the public were not invited to subscribe before registration, a company might easily obtain a certificate of registration, after which subscriptions might be invited, and the intended safeguards could thus be avoided. Then there was a difficulty in connection with allotment. Supposing a company's shares had all been subscribed on the first allotment, which was not infrequently the case, and that within the year it was considered necessary by the directors to raise money by way of debentures, for which they issued a prospectus, at the same time desiring to elect a very large shareholder to the directorate, and a vacancy of the board occurred, or, at all events, it was thought advisable to elect that large shareholder, it was impossible under the provisions of this Bill to do so until the expiry of the year. No
  204
  shareholder could be appointed a director of the company within the year unless he was named in the articles of association, or unless he lodged with the registrar a contract in writing undertaking to take from the company and pay for a certain number of shares, although the company might not be able to give the shares. That appeared to be a great absurdity. A shareholder who might hold three-fourths of the shares could not be appointed a director unless he complied with certain requirements which were really impracticable. He hoped that would be altered in the Upper House. The provisions with regard to the minimum subscription required amendment, because they could be easily evaded. The requirements in regard to the prospectus were designed to prevent fraud in the promotion of a new company, but they put unnecessary difficulties in the way of a company of long standing in the legitimate object of raising further capital by debentures. It would be obliged to state in the prospectus a number of old matters and transactions long forgotten, which investors would not care to know. They would prefer to see the last two or three balance sheets. When a director concurred in omitting to comply with some of the intricate requirements of this Bill in regard to the issue of the prospectus, was sued and had to pay damages, he could not make his co-directors contribute. It was only when an untrue statement had been made and a great wrong had resulted that he could make them contribute. What would happen to him if the prospectus both contained an untrue statement and did not meet with the requirements of the Act? It would take one with more ability than he had for solving puzzles, to determine. Another hardship was that if there was fraud in the formation of a company, or at any time of its existence, and the company came into liquidation—no matter whether the fraud had been committed by a director, manager, clerk, or even the office-boy—every person who during that time had been a director or officer of the company might be called upon, at his own expense, to be exposed to the ordeal and torture of an examination in public. These were a few of the points which he had picked out of the Bill which still required consideration, and he hoped that the House of Lords would assent to the Amendments in the direc-

  205
  tion he had indicated. As Andrew Fair-service would have said, this Bill was "ower bad for blessing, but too guid for cursing."
  *MR. LAWSON WALTON: The right hon. Gentleman has been congratulated at having reached the end of his labours; but I do not think that these congratulations, when they had reference to the character or the result of this measure, were entirely unmingled with a feeling of regret. I confess that I regard this Bill with some measure of disappointment. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has missed a very great opportunity for amending defects in company law; and that after this measure has been passed there will still be a strong sense throughout the country that defects exist which might have been remedied. The right hon. Gentleman has been subjected to very great difficulties. In the first place, he had to deal with a stale measure. It was drafted some years ago, and was adapted to a state of things in regard to company promotion which the lapse of time had rendered obsolete. The methods of company promoting had considerably altered during the last few years, and since this scheme was framed. The light which was thrown upon the subject by the revelations in connection with the Hooley and other companies was absent, and therefore the result was a measure ill adapted for Amendments which were necessary to bring it into harmony with the modern conditions under which companies are launched. Again, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suffer almost a paralysis owing to his anxiety not to overweight the Bill. Any Amendments proposed with the view of increasing its efficiency he appeared to regard with undue apprehension. Whether he feared the influence of some of his supporters or his colleagues, or whether he was afraid of criticism in another place, he lent a very much more ready ear to suggestions that would render the Bill less operative than to suggestions which would have made it a more effective instrument for the prevention of fraud. Then the right hon. Gentleman was subjected to undue pressure, having regard to the very limited time available for the discussion of a measure of the very first importance. When one considers the very trifling record of the session, the
  206
  reason why this important measure is left to the very last day is difficult to imagine. It is almost impossible to give one's mind to criticising its complicated provisions in the time. The result of the procedure which has been adopted is that we have a Bill which none of us regard as an unmixed good. It does very little to remove the difficulties attendant on honest company enterprise, and very little to suppress fraud in company promotion. It is impossible to suppose that the company reformer will be satisfied with this measure, and after it has passed through Parliament we shall sooner or later have to take up the duty of forging a more perfect instrument to check the frauds of company promoting. There are defects which cripple this scheme which must be remedied before any effectual measure of company reform is passed. The Bill does not in any way deal with gambling companies which are formed without any prospectus. The whole framework of the measure is adapted to a state of things which assumes that every company is launched with a prospectus. The very elaborate requirements with which the directors are compelled to comply in issuing the prospectus are unattended by any penalties. They must furnish information on many topics, but if they do not do so there is no penalty in the Bill, and it therefore becomes necessary to fall back on the antiquated, cumbrous, and almost obsolete indictment for misdemeanour at common law. Now in no modern statute in my experience are the requirements of statutes left to be enforced by means of an indictment for misdemeanour at common law. In all modern statutes penalties are created, and in nearly every case you have the process of summary conviction which may be put at the disposal of persons enforcing the law. In this measure there is no such provision, and I cannot help thinking that this Bill has been drawn by somebody entirely unfamiliar with the practice of inserting such a provision in an Act of Parliament. There is no provision for giving the shareholders information with respect to the money expended by the vendor or the promoter in the promotion of a company. The vendor's account and the promotion account are not among the documents to be supplied to the shareholders. The Bill is framed upon the assumption that the cost of the promotion

  207
  is to be borne by the company, but the cost of the promotion in nearly all cases is borne by those persons who bring it into existence, so that it is most essential that those accounts should be supplied in order that dishonesty in promoting companies should be stopped. Then as to the one man company. A more indefensible condition of things than that which is known as the one man company cannot be imagined; but after this Bill has become law, it will be possible for a man to bring out a company, to take all the shares and carry on his business under the name of a company, and although he owns all the property and takes all the profit of the business he leaves all the risk to the company and is under no liability. That is certainly a matter that should be remedied, but as this measure stands that state of things will continue to exist, because, as a man does not publish a prospectus to himself, and there is no record of shares allotted, or debentures placed, there is nothing to enable any person to inquire into the extraordinary scheme of which that company is the result. There is also no attempt to limit the practice of qualifying the liability of directors and other officers of the company by the insertion of provisions in the company's Articles. I do not wish to say anything with regard to this measure which may cause the right hon. Gentleman any disappointment. So far as it goes it is an honest and useful effort on the part of the Government in the path of company reform, but I greatly regret that it has not been made more complete. Important matters are left for future legislation, and if we fail to take advantage of the stream now when it is at the flood we may have to wait a long time for another opportunity. These evils will continue to exist in our industrial system; scandals will from time to time arise, and the present Bill may be pointed to as representing the sum of attainable effort in our generation.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid that he saw in this Bill no difficulties put in the way of unscrupulous men to prevent them getting over or evading the provisions made for the protection of the public. One result of the measure would be that the public would be put to greater expense than they had had hitherto to bear in the formation of
  208
  companies. There was one point which he wished specially to point out. There was no tribunal to deal with complaints. The Board of Trade had taken no power under which they could investigate charges of fraud. The investigation would take place when the company was in liquidation, and when all the assets had been lost. Investors would like the investigation to come at some previous period, but there was no provision whatever for that in the Bill. The Bill provided with respect to the question of qualification that the prospectus should state the amount. There would be no difficulty in stating the amount at such a small figure that the good which the provision in the Bill was intended to secure would be done away with. Again, the provision in the Bill on the question of allotment lent itself to evasion, inasmuch as promoters could easily put in nominees, men of straw, to subscribe, and under the names of A, B, C, and D, with £1,000, £2,000, £3,000 and £4,000 respectively, they would be able to ensure the flotation of the company. He mentioned those points to illustrate what he felt—namely, that this Bill was not more far-reaching than the present law, and did not really deal with men who were capable of evading the law. Some day or other the Bill would have to be amended, inasmuch as it would be found that the expense honest promoters would have to undergo would be far more than they had to pay under the present law. He was afraid that the Bill would not have the very much desired effect. He was sure the country had viewed with consternation the acts which had lately been seen of unscrupulous men who floated companies without any tangible assets. Even if this Act had been in force it would not have been possible to prevent the fleecing of the public in the way those men had done. Those acts were within the knowledge of everyone in the House. He regretted that this Bill had not had more time devoted to it. The importance of it had not been fully gauged by those interested in it.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that company promoters generally looked pretty well after themselves. So far as the complaint of the hon. Member for the Romford Division was concerned, he did not share it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of

  209
  Trade had, he had no doubt, the most honest and excellent intentions in bringing forward this Bill, but he did not carry out his excellent intentions in the Bill. It seemed to him, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that he really did not know the tricks of promoters sufficiently to be able to provide against them in the Bill. The Bill admittedly was one of the worst ever passed by a legislative assembly. He had been concerned in passing many Bills, good, bad, and indifferent, but he did not know any Bill so bad— not in its principles, but in the mode of giving effect to those principles—as the Bill they were going to read the third time that evening. The Bill was badly drawn up. It went to a Committee on which they bad a number of wholly excellent and intelligent lawyers, and a good many perfectly respectable directors. They knew nothing of the subject with which they had to deal. The honest directors put up their hands to heaven and asked, "Can such things be?" Then the Bill came down to the House. They could not discuss a Bill of this importance and magnitude in the last week of the session. In order to make the Bill ship-shape and to make it hold water it ought to have been discussed much longer. What happened on the previous night? The President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney General were in possession of what he might call a mechanical majority. They had about thirty gentlemen sitting behind them who voted against every Amendment which the Government did not accept Those gentlemen knew absolutely nothing of the matter. The Government Whips ought not to interfere in connection with such a Bill as this. It was not a party question, but in this case they knew perfectly well that the whip pointed to the lobby, and Amendments proposed by his hon. and learned friend the Member for South Leeds and others were voted down. At the same time the, thirty Members on the other side of the House were kept sweet by the right hon. Gentleman making concessions to them. Some Gentleman got up and moved a little Amendment on the other side of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman said, "Agreed, agreed," before they knew where they were, and thereupon the Amendment was carried, whereas when Amendments were moved from the Opposition side of the House there was no cry of
  210
  "Agreed." It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman considered it a point of honour to oppose them. It was to be a real Conservative Bill, and, naturally from the standpoint of Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, it was a very bad Bill. [The hon. Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell interjected a remark which was inaudible in the Gallery.] The hon. Gentleman was an angel among those who were not angels. His Amendments were excellent ones, but they were too much in the line of those proposed on the Opposition side to find favour with the right hon. Gentleman. That morning at half-past one, when the House adjourned, he was prepared to sit until three o'clock if they could amend the Bill in any way. The case was perfectly hopeless. The House was getting more and more sleepy, and there were cries of "Divide, divide," from the faithful thirty. Under those circumstances he went off to bed and left the right hon. Gentleman to do what he pleased. The right hon. Gentleman was very courteous, but he always distrusted a Minister who was very courteous. He knew perfectly well what it meant. He knew that the courtesy was a sort of quid pro quo for getting something else. His hon. friend had pointed out many of the shortcomings of the Bill, and it seemed to him that when a clause was passed shutting up some loophole for swindling it was opened again, and that further opportunities for swindling were given that did not at present exist. A clause in the Bill stated that a company might underwrite, and on the prospectus a statement of what it paid for the underwriting was to be set forth. But right hon. Gentlemen refused to allow any money which might be paid by the promoters in excess of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. paid by the company to appear on the prospectus. What was the consequence? The investor, looking at a prospectus, would say, "This is a very good company, for it has been underwritten at 2 per cent."; but for all they knew the underwriting might have been 10 per cent., because the right hon. Gentleman would not agree that whatever was given for underwriting, whether by the promoters or the company, should appear on the prospectus. Then as to abridged prospectuses, surely it was desirable that in an abridged prospectus the main substantial facts

  211
  should be stated. An Amendment was moved to that effect, but the right hon. gentleman refused to accept it, and he said that if abridged prospectuses were not allowed newspapers alone would profit. As a matter of fact, newspapers would gain by abridged prospectuses, because if the full prospectus had to be published not many would be advertised, and then only for brief periods, and when a particular company would rather avoid full publicity the abridged prospectus would be spread abroad. He always distrusted a company which advertised very much. If the company were a rotten company depending entirely on the names on what Mr. Hooley called "the front page," it would be found that it would be before the public for a week or more, and the longer it was before the public and the longer the prospectus, the presumption was the worse was the company. So far as newspapers were concerned, if they looked only to their own interests and not to the interests of the public, they would be very glad to have the system of abridged prospectuses. Then it had been pointed out that there were no penalties in the Bill, and that all its clauses were a series of pious opinions. There might be a prosecution by some roundabout way at common law, but why not have adopted the usual system and included specific penalties in the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman was so enamoured of the measure that he absolutely refused to make any change in it. As to one man companies, they were generally swindles. Of course, a perfectly honest man might for family reasons wish to convert his business into a private company, but as a general rule the man who wished to convert his business into a company did so either because he found the business was going down or because for the preceding two or three years there had been very large profits which he wished to capitalise. Then he started his company without a prospectus. The shares were sold to the public, he himself keeping the debentures, and in a little while when the company went into liquidation the shareholders got nothing. The one man company was a danger which ought to have been dealt with in the Bill, but they had absolutely shirked it. Then as to brokers: would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what was a "lawful brokerage"?
  212
  Every hon. Member connected with the Stock Exchange would bear him out when he stated that, while there were many honest brokers who took a fair and legitimate brokerage, there were a great many other people, some of them members of the Stock Exchange and others solicitors, who took an enormous brokerage. They were told that they could have a call on £1 shares for 15s.; that if they sold them they would get 5s. a share, and that if they did not they would not lose anything. Such a broker sent out circulars to his clients and informed them what excellent shares he could offer them, his clients, of course, having no idea that the broker was doing anything except looking after their interests. In that way, not only in the case of new companies but also in the case of old companies, the public were robbed throughout the country. He was not a sentimentalist. A great deal had been said about widows and orphans, but generally the widow was "a stag," and the orphan did not take shares. It was stated that an investor would send for the full prospectus before he applied for shares. That was simply nonsense. An investor in the country saw a prospectus which stated that the list would close for the country to-morrow morning; how could he send for a prospectus? The Bill was to go before the House of Lords. He was was not a warm admirer of the House of Lords, but every institution in the world which had lasted for a long time had something to be said for it. In the House of Lords there were a large number of legal gentlemen who were particularly qualified to deal with the matters connected with the Bill, and he sincerely hoped that the House of Lords, would show it was a useful body, by dealing with the Bill in a very different manner to that in which it had been dealt with in the House of Commons. There was a good deal in the Bill which ought not to be in it, and there was a good deal not in it which ought to be in it. As the Bill stood at present he believed it would have been better in the public interest if it had not been passed that session, but that next session, with the knowledge they had before them, a good practical Bill should be brought in and discussed at a time when its provisions could be properly examined.
  MR. MARKSsaid he did not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had quite made out a case for the sweeping condemnation with which he had opened his speech. The hon. Gentleman said this was one of the worst of the many bad Bills which he had discussed. He had less experience of very bad Bills than the hon. Member; but he was bound to say if what the hon. Member had said of this Bill was the worst that could be said of it, the Government had to be congratulated on a very fair achievement. It was by no means, in his judgment, a perfect Bill. It was true many things had been left out of the Bill which might have been put into it, and a few things were put in which might have been left out; but at the same time, when one considered the circumstances under which the measure had been brought before the House, it was perfectly obvious that two or three of the chief evils of company promotion had been dealt with in an effective manner. In the matter of disclosure in the prospectus the Bill went as far as any reasonable Bill could go. There was the obligation to disclose important facts in connection with the formation of the company, the obligation to disclose the terms upon which underwriting was obtained——
  MR. LABOUCHERE: There is the obligation to disclose what the company pays for underwriting; but, at the same time, a promoter may add to that by paying what he likes.
  MR. MARKSsaid that was perfectly true; but, at all events, the company had to disclose the amount paid by it for underwriting. It was absolutely impossible for it to disclose what another person might pay for underwriting. He had pointed this out in Committee. Another important feature was the obligation on a company to register its mortgages of a certain class, and to endorse on mortgage debentures, when they are issued, the fact of their registration. There were, however, two important omissions from the Bill which militated very much against it. In the first place, it did not deal with what was known as the non-prospectus or the private company. The authors of the Bill had
  214
  proceeded under the impression that subscriptions to all limited companies were obtained by means of prospectuses duly published. Those who were familiar with the facts were aware that in the majority of these companies, many of which had caused disaster to investors, the subscriptions were not obtained by the issue of a public prospectus. In order to deal with the evils at which the Bill was aimed it was essential that the non-prospectus companies should be dealt with; but they had not been dealt with. He regretted that the most useful proposal of the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds— that there should be an obligation to file, at the time of the company's registration, a Memorandum that would serve as a prospectus at all stages of the company's history—was refused by the Government. When the Act was in operation it would be found that the rejection of that Amendment was a fatal flaw in the measure, and had deprived it of what would have been its most valuable feature. One other point might be emphasised, which it might not be too late to remedy in the House of Lords—namely, the manner in which the registration of a certain class of charges had been dealt with. The great object which joint-stock company reformers had lately had in view had been to protect trade creditors. This class was not effectively protected by the provisions of the Bill. There was no safeguard in reference to the charges upon uncalled capital. In the case where inspection of the register of mortgages was provided for, the inspection was limited to the actual shareholders and creditors of the company; but these were not the people most concerned to know the financial condition of the company The person most concerned was the intending creditor. The person so situated looked at the list of shareholders and found a large number of respectable names, and that there was £50,000 or £60,000 of uncalled capital. On the strength of that he gave credit to the company. He was not aware that behind his back the company had mortgaged its unpaid capital to a bank or a money-lending intsitution. Such a person had no means of finding out the financial condition of the company before he gave it credit, and if he inquired at the offices of the company he would stand a very poor chance of getting any orders. He felt that in the two important respects he had

  215
  mentioned the Bill fell short of what might be expected.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that though they had devoted a good deal of time and labour to the Bill, yet they had not spent enough time and pains on it. The Bill had been before the House of Lords for four years, and he did not see why the Government should not have sent it to the Commons Grand Committee in March instead of in July, when they were obliged to act under a constant sense of hurry and pressure. Moreover, the Government appeared to him to have been too much in fear of an unseen and malignant influence, which appeared to him to be the influence of the House of Lords. The Bill which was originally introduced in the other House was a far more drastic measure than the present Bill, and he was of opinion that many desirable Amendments had been refused by the Government, not because they were not right in themselves, but merely because they thought it would be more difficult to pass the measure through the other House. He could not, therefore, agree with the hon. Member for Northampton, who had expressed an admiration for that body, which would evoke all the more gratitude because it was so unexpected. Looking at the part which the other House had played in preventing the Bill going further, and in cutting it down while it was before them, he thought it would be seen that the critical faculty of the House of Lords greatly exceeded its constructive faculty. The House of Lords possessed eminent legal knowledge and great power, but they rejected a proposal lest in one case in a hundred it might work badly. They could not possibly effect amendments in the law without taking some risk, and it appeared to him that the House of Lords should take some risk in matters of this kind. In their anxiety to protect the honest man, they left the meshes wide enough for others to slip through, and he was, therefore obliged to agree that the measure was not a very satisfactory one, although he did not largely blame the Government for the reasons he had mentioned. Now they had come to the end of the Bill many of them must feel, as a man sometimes did when he had finished writing a book, that then he knew how to write it, and would like to begin
  216
  and write ft all again. They had certainly realised the extraordinary difficulties of the subject, and that was why he congratulated the right hon. Gentlemen on having passed even this Bill. The difficulties were attributable not only to the fact that new practices came into being in business, and that diverse interests of directors, shareholders, and creditors had to be regarded, but to the fact that the main object of the Bill was to deal with fraud. The maxim that fraud was infinite was two thousand years old; but it was as true now as it ever was. It was not much use trying to anticipate and prevent the particular forms which fraud had heretofore taken, because one might feel sure when one hole had been stopped the rabbit would get into the garden through another. Therefore he was not very sanguine as to the method they had adopted of inventing a great number of detailed provisions to counterwork and prevent the devices by which fraud might seek to attain its ends. He was not sure that they would not have done better to try and pass a, simpler and shorter Bill, of which the main purpose should be the laying down more broadly of the doctrine of the kind of good faith and honesty required from promoters and directors and every person occupying a fiduciary position. We ought to put the promoter not in a position regarding which precautions should be taken, but in the position of a man bound to exercise the utmost good faith. The best way of dealing with this Protean subject of fraud was to arm our courts with greater powers, and that, he thought, ought to have been done. Of course, that meant giving a considerable discretion to the courts, but he thought that might safely be done. The great difficulty in the way was that when they trusted to the courts they were obliged to trust to people to bring actions, and there was a great indisposition to resort to criminal procedure, and juries had a tendency to let people off for doing what was only the common practice. From civil actions he had more hope, but the constant reproach of our law was the fearful expense and difficulty of putting it into motion, and the question of the reform of the company law was therefore really a branch of the wider question of making the law of England more effective and cheaper. That being so, he could not join in the severe con-

  217
  demnation passed on the Bill. He thought there were some good points in it, and though he regretted that nothing had been done with the non-prospectus companies and the one-man companies, still they had got some distinct gain from the Bill; and, remembering how long they had had to wait for it, he did not think the Government would have done well to wait until next session. But they had not reached anything like finality, and they would have to watch with the greatest care the results of the experiment they were now trying. Considering how difficult the subject was, and the extraordinary want of knowledge which most Members of the House possessed about this very special subject, he was not prepared to say that the Bill was at all to be disparaged or that they might not have to look on it as a distinct step forward. He would join, therefore, in the congratulations which had been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman on the perseverance and open-mindedness he bad shown, and although he could not regard the measure as final, still a good deal would be learned from its working. He hoped, however, that the President of the Board of Trade would keep before his mind the probability that in a few years they would be in a position to pass a measure which would remedy some of the defects that would then have been disclosed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,)said that whatever he might say with regard to some of the observations made on this Bill, he certainly had no fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. In fact, he agreed with much that the right hon. Gentleman had said. He would have been very glad if it had been possible to make this a more complete Bill than it was. To a certain extent the Bill was in the nature of an experiment, and with regard to its merits they could only be determined by seeing how they would work out in operation. No claim could be made for the Bill anything in the shape of finality. Indeed, he would be inclined to say that it seemed to be a fault in our legislation that we attempted to deal with many matters much more comprehensively than was prudent, and he thought a great deal was to be said for moving tentatively, especially in connec-
  218
  tion with a measure of this kind. There was one remark of the right hon. Gentleman with which he confessed he was not quite in accord. The right hon. Gentleman said that when we finished the Bill last night we felt very much as a man feels who has finished an interesting book and desires to read it all over again.
  MR. BRYCE: What I said was that we felt like a man who had written an interesting book, and who, when he came to the end of it, thought that now that he knew how to write it he would like to begin and write it all over again.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that was not his feeling last night when the Bill got through. Many difficult and complex questions had to be discussed, and he was very glad when they were finished. Several of the speeches which had been made had been delivered with a view to showing once again to the House how strong were the arguments with which hon. Gentlemen supported the Amendments they moved, but he did not think he should usefully occupy the time of the House if he entered into a discussion of details or attempted to reply to arguments which had been addressed to the House more than once. The right hon. Gentleman said he would prefer a shorter and a simpler Bill. His view would be to give greater power to the courts; but he answered himself by showing that that would involve going to the courts and entailing an enormous expense, and was, therefore, a course which was open to considerable objection. He (Mr. Ritchie) thought he ought to remind the House, in answer to the complaints which had been made by some hon. Gentlemen that the Bill was not as fully discussed as the importance of the subject warranted, of the history of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen knew very well that the Departmental Committee was appointed by himself. The subject of company law reform was originally investigated by the Departmental Committee, comprised of some of Her Majesty's judges, able lawyers, and eminent merchants who were in touch with the commercial world. The Bill which emanated from that Committee was not exactly the Bill they had before them now, but it was very much on the same

  219
  lines; although the Bill introduced by his representative in the House of Lords four years ago was exactly in the shape recommended by the Departmental Committee, it was afterwards amended by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton expressed his confidence in the House of Lords and in the popularity of its Members, he was glad to hear him.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The Law Lords.
  MR. RITCHIE: The Law Lords! He was still more glad to hear it; because this Bill had been under the consideration of a Committee of the most eminent Law Lords for no less than four years, and that Committee had had before it men the most eminently capable of giving information in regard to company law. It was true that it seemed sometimes to hang fire in the other House, and the reason for that was that these eminent lawyers were very much occupied, and could not devote that amount of time to it which they in the House of Commons could do. The hon. Member must therefore feel a glow of satisfaction when he knew that that critical examination into this question which he advocated had already taken place by the House of Lords and by its most eminent Members. It was only natural that when a Bill came down to that House with such a recommendation as that there should be very little doubt about any very material point in it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken of the extreme difficulty of the subject. No doubt it was extremely difficult, and a sort of subject which he undertook to say, whatever shape the Bill had assumed in that or the other House, would not have satisfied everybody. It must be remembered that this was a matter which must be dealt with with extremely great caution. The enormous bulk of the companies of this country had been very successful, and had done great things for our commerce and industry, and in endeavouring to hit at the undoubted defects in the law, and strike at undoubted fraudulent concerns, they must take extreme care not to make the law so drastic that honest men would be prevented from becoming directors of honest concerns, while the worst class of
  220
  director would not be deterred from joining in the formation of fraudulent companies. That had always been present to his mind throughout the whole course of the discussion on the Bill. He had felt on many occasions that there had been a good deal to be said for some of the Amendments proposed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and for many of the Amendments he had a sneaking regard. But he had always in his mind the great fear, already stated, that by accepting some of them it would make it difficult for good men to join good companies as directors, while the worst class of company directors would not be prevented in any way from undertaking the risks of joining in the formation of companies which were not so good. It had been said that they had been rather hurrying on this measure. He would have been glad if it had been introduced at an earlier stage of the session. It had been on the tapis for four or five years, and a great number of its provisions had been asked for by the great mass of the commercial community, and although the House might differ on some points in the Bill, he was satisfied that it was in the interest of the commercial community generally that this reform of company law ought not to be kept hanging over year after year, and should not be further delayed. Although he should have liked to see it introduced earlier in the session, he did not think there were any grounds for saying that the House of Commons had not had an opportunity of adequately considering it. As the right hon. the Member for Aberdeen said, seven days had been spent on it in Grand Committee, and every one of the points—far more than had been raised in the House itself—that could have occurred to the ingenuity of any one in regard to company law, had been brought before and discussed by the Committee in a businesslike and capable manner. He must therefore say that he did not think there was any just reason for complaint that the House of Commons had passed this measure in a hurry, and without time for the consideration of Amendments desired to be put forward by hon. Gentlemen. In fact, on the Report stage, many of the most important questions touched on in Committee were discussed again. He was much obliged to the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen, and the right hon.

  221
  and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs, for the manner in which they had spoken of the part which his colleagues, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, had taken in this matter. They had tried to consider in a fair and reasonable manner all the proposals put before them, and if they had not accepted all the Amendments, it was because they believed they would not advance the cause they had at heart, and would not have the effect that they desired in preventing men from engaging in these undertakings. He believed himself that the full disclosure of the position of the companies sought to be formed—which was the real principle of the Bill—would have a very considerable effect in enlightening the public mind, and in its operation it would have a very beneficial effect on the country, if not all that some of them had hoped. It was possible and extremely probable that, after seeing the working of the Bill for some longer or shorter time, they should be able from the experience so derived to do something more in undertaking further reforms.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he would not detain the House more than a few moments. He would not say anything after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, especially as the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen was not present, except on two definite points. He did not wish to criticise the Bill at all, but only to urge two points. The first was that this Bill was directed substantially against fraud. He believed that the Bill might be useful, though he was afraid it would not do as much as the right hon. Gentleman expected. But there were constantly occurring, every year, the most scandalous and gross frauds in company administration; and he did not think that there had been a sufficient use of the existing criminal law for the purpose of punishing, according to the law as it existed, those gross frauds by which many millions sterling every year were taken out of the pockets of honest and confiding people and put into the pockets of thieves and scoundrels, for they were nothing better. He ventured to suggest to the Attorney General that he should keep a very close eye on what was going on, and what was perfectly well known. In cases which
  222
  were really fraudulent the Attorney General should put the sharp edge of the criminal law into force for the purpose of preventing these scandalous things which they knew were constantly going on. The criminal law had, in fact, become a by-word in connection with company administration. There was a second suggestion he had to make. An Amendment had been introduced into the Bill for the purpose of enabling a public examination to take place in those cases where the official receiver had made a report. He ventured to make the further suggestion—if it was not too late, with a view to a passage of the Bill through the other House—that cases of compulsory liquidation were very small in number; but there was no means of public examination in cases of voluntary liquidation, no matter how scandalous these had been, or in cases of liquidation under the supervision of the court. The publicity of examinations under the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 had been most effective. The Colonial Secretary, who was then President of the Board of Trade, pointed in 1883 to the necessity of publicity in any bankruptcy proceedings, and maintained with great force that not only the creditors, but the public, had an interest in the disclosures of frauds, irregularities and improprieties. The gentleman at present at the head of the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade had repeatedly drawn attention to the very same thing, and said that one of the best means of preventing frauds was publicity. They could not have public examinations as the law now stood, except in the small number—and it was a decreasing number—of cases of compulsory liquidation. He ventured to suggest that more effective than even the clauses of this Bill, would be publicity, and the provision that men who were guilty of disgraceful conduct in getting up and in the management of companies should not be able, by means of voluntary liquidation, to shield themselves from public contempt, and it might be from criminal prosecution.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) said he rose to say only a word in regard to the first suggestion of his hon. and learned friend. He seemed to think that there had been some remissness in

  223
  bringing the criminal law into operation in connection with company frauds. He could not help thinking that if his hon. and learned friend had closely followed the prosecutions during the last few years——
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he did not mean to imply censure.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid ho was quite sure his hon. friend did not imply any censure. There had been a considerable number of prosecutions for fraud in connection with companies, and he thought that in most of these cases convictions had resulted. He must remind his hon. friend of the fact that before entering on prosecutions of this kind it was necessary to be tolerably sure that they had sufficient evidence to ensure that justice would be done. It would be a great evil if a prosecution of this kind ended in a fiasco. There might be little doubt that a gross fraud had taken place, but it might be extremely difficult to get the necessary evidence. He could not help thinking that when his hon. friend spoke of the criminal law being rather a by-word, he was exaggerating. When the present Master of the Rolls was Attorney General the same vigilance was brought to bear in cases of this kind as when his hon. and learned friend occupied the same office. He could assure the House that the attention of the Public Prosecutor and of himself would not be relaxed, and whenever they could see their way, where it was desirable in the public interests that prosecutions should be undertaken, there would be no remissness.
  Bill road the third time, and passed.

NAVAL RESERVE BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, on a point of order he wished to show that this Bill dealt with a new Naval Volunteer force. By reference there was
  224
  introduced into the Bill all the provisions, of t e Naval Volunteer Act of 1859. The provisions of that Act entitled the Lords of the Admiralty to give pensions and certain remuneration to those who were in that reserve force. This Bill established a new Naval Volunteer force, which was to be paid in the same way as the existing Royal Naval Volunteers, and that, of course, involved a large payment out of the Imperial funds. His contention was that the clause in the Bill in that, respect was really an enabling clause to make a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and therefore should have first been introduced by resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. Take as an example the Lunacy Board (Scotland) Bill. That Bill was introduced in the ordinary way by the Lord Advocate, who, however, afterwards withdrew it, and then introduced it in Committee, on the ground that it was a Money Bill, and should be so introduced. He understood that Mr. Speaker had made some observation that, where the money was to be paid out under the sanction of Parliament afterwards, a resolution in Committee was not, necessary, but in the Lunacy Board (Scotland) Bill all the money was to be paid by Vote of Parliament. He might point out, also, that they were in a very different position from what they were a few years ago, because they had, by the new procedure, closure of Supply.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with a point of order.
  MR. CALDWELLsubmitted, on a point of order, that where money was authorised by Act of Parliament to be paid, whether a Vote of Parliament subsequently was necessary or not, the practice and rule of the House was that the Act should be preceded by a money resolution in Committee.
  *MR. SPEAKER: An objection of this, kind should have been taken before the Bill was read a second time. It is too late to take it now after the Bill has passed through Committee and been ordered for Third Reading. But I ought to add that Bills of this kind have always been brought in, not in Committee, but by leave. There was a series of Naval Reserve or Enlistment Bills of a similar character to this

  225
  Bill so introduced in 1859 and 1867; and in 1884 there was the Naval Discipline Bill. In all of these powers were given to the Admiralty to make regulations for the pay and pensions of new forces, and they were brought in by leave and not treated as subject to the rule to which the hon. Member refers as affecting the introduction of Money Bills. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that I have ever stated it as a general rule that where money is to be voted by Parliament afterwards, the preliminary Committee stage is not required.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he had a few observations to make on the Third Reading of the Bill. This Bill, if passed, would make a new constitutional departure. Hitherto Parliament had acted on the footing that wherever a Reserve force was authorised by the country the number of the men should be put into the Act, and also the amount of payment and the conditions of service. Under the Volunteer Act of 1859, to which this Bill referred, the number of Volunteers was fixed at a number not exceeding 30,000. There was obviously a constitutional advantage in Parliament fixing the number of men forming the Reserve and the conditions of service, as a protection against the Executive of the day assuming the functions which should be reserved to Parliament as a whole. Now, by this Bill a new division of the Naval Reserve was to be created, but its numbers were not limited by any provision in the Bill; they might be 20,000 or 30,000, and that he held to be a constitutional departure. Another point was that by the Act of 1859 the period of service was fixed at five years, but by this Bill no period was fixed; it might be five or ten years. It all depended on the conditions of the pensions and the conditions of enlistment and employment. That was an altogether new departure on the part of a Government which claimed to be the constitutional party. It did not seem to him that that part of the Bill making it compulsory on all who received pensions to go into the Reserve for an indefinite number of years would have the effect of securing many men for this particular force. In his opinion it would be a great advantage if they spread out as much as possible, both in the Army and Navy, the men who were to serve.
  226
  Unless they did so they would weaken instead of strengthen the country. He looked upon the Bill as an entirely new departure, and no information had been given as to why powers of so important a character should be asked for. The House was entitled to complain of so important a measure being brought in at so late a period of the session, when it could not receive adequate discussion. Moving the rejection of the Bill would have no other result than a walk through the lobbies, and that being so, he should not move the motion standing in his name. The only object for putting it down was to protest against the Third Reading.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
As amended, considered.
A Clause (Composition of Board)—(Mr. G. W. Balfour)—brought up, and road the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. MAURICE HEALYsubmitted that this was rather more than a mere drafting Amendment. Clause 4 required that the Board which was to exercise power under this Act should be a new one and not the old one, and the clause drawn by the right hon. Gentleman would not have the effect desired. It would be competent under this clause for the Lord Lieutenant to delay the nomination of the new members, and allow the old Board to exercise the powers under this Act.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,)admitted that that point had escaped him, and he undertook to put the clause in such a form as would meet the objection.
Clause read a second time, and added.
MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that when Clause 3 was before the Committee strong protests were raised against it. For the benefit of those who were not present on that occasion he might point out that that clause was of a most extraordinary character. In the administration of its office the Board acted quite independently of the Civil Service rule; the employees were not subjected to competitive examinations, and they were nominated on the strict understanding that they were not to have pensions, and their salaries were fixed on that basis. In the face of that, this clause was brought in providing for the pension of these persons, who were appointed by the mere favour of the ruling class in Ireland, quite irrespective of their qualification. If they were Civil servants they ought, in the ordinary course, to be pensioned out of English funds, but in this case it was proposed to pay these pensions out of a purely Irish fund.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 8, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words 'on the condition and.' "—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid he could not accept the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendments made.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I merely wish to ask the Government whether there is any hope of getting to the end of these continuous Poor Relief Bills for Ireland, and whether the Chief Secretary will make some attempt to codify the statute law.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said that the codification of the Poor Relief laws was occupying the attention of the Government.

PROHIBITION OF EXPORTATION OF ARMS BILL [Lords].
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading road.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsuggested that some member of the Government should explain the object of the Bill.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It may be convenient that I should first give my views in regard to the Bill. My belief is that this Bill is not necessary. I believe that the prerogative of the Queen already covers the prohibition of "the exportation of arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores," and so forth, when she has reason to believe that they will be used against her, without any Act of Parliament at all. If that be so it is somewhat belittling the prerogative to introduce a Bill in order to give the Sovereign power she possesses already. I understand, however, that that belief is not shared by Her Majesty's law advisers. I therefore do not insist upon it. The first thing I remark regarding the Bill is that while it extends power to the Sovereign to prohibit by proclamation the exportation of arms, not generally, but to certain specified places, it also very materially diminishes the category of prohibition, if I may use the term. Here I may say that this is a Bill which really is drafted in the most obnoxious way. It refers to a previous Act. Clause 2 says—
"This Act shall be read as one with the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, and all the provisions of that Act, so far as they are applicable to the exportation of prohibited goods, shall apply as if they were embodied in this Act, and as if Section 1 of this Act were part of Section 8 of that Act."
I turned to the Act of 1879 in the Revised Statutes, and there is not a word in

229
it about exportation of arms, but there you are referred to the schedule of a previous Act. When I got to that other Act I found it was really the Customs Laws Consolidation Act of 1876, the material section of that measure being No. 138, and here the House will see how very much larger the power of prohibition given by that section is as compared with what is proposed to be given by this Bill. The section reads as follows—
"The following goods may, by proclamation or Order in Council, be prohibited either in, to be exported, or carried coast-wise: arms, ammunition, and gunpowder, military and naval stores, and any articles which Her Majesty shall judge capable of being converted into or made useful in increasing the quantity of military or naval stores, provisions or any sort of victual which may be used as food for man, and if any goods so prohibited shall be exported or brought to any quay or other place to be shipped for exportation from the United Kingdom or carried coast-wise, or be water-borne to be so exported or carried, they shall be forfeited."
Why is it proposed by this Bill that Her Majesty should only be able to do by proclamation that which can be done under the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876 either by Order in Council or by proclamation? Is it to be said that this section is embodied as a part of this Bill? I do not think that can really be said, because the House will see that there are considerable differences. In the section that I have just read it will be observed that there are two categories, "arms and ammunition" and "military and naval stores," and in addition to that there are any other articles which are capable of being converted into the munitions of war. I think that is very important indeed, because there are things that are not in themselves military or naval stores. For instance, there is the whole category of chemicals. They are not embodied in this Bill. It is right, no doubt, that Her Majesty should have the right to prohibit the exportation of arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores when she has reason to believe that they would be used against her, but it is no less important that she should also have the power to prohibit the exportation of the other articles enumerated in the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876—namely, articles which may be judged capable of being converted into, or made useful as, military and naval stores. High explosives are made out of chemicals which are largely made in this country. The
230
Government have already found it necessary to prohibit the export of certain chemicals. If it has been necessary to do that in a general manner, surely it is necessary to put power to do that in this Bill. The second clause of the Bill is an instance of allusive or referential drafting of the most malignant character. I would suggest for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government whether it would not be proper to introduce in the first clause of this Bill the 138th Section of the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876. I also wish to ask a question upon a point of international law. Do naval and military stores include coal? I believe they do. I have very little doubt about it. I have seen correspondence in connection with the war with Russia in 1854, whereby Sir Charles Napier was ordered to capture coal destined for Russian ports as contraband. In 1870–71, Her Majesty's Government prohibited the exportation of English coal to French fleets. I have made these remarks I need hardly say in no hostile spirit to the Bill or to the Government, but out of anxiety that what we do we should do thoroughly, and that there should be no loophole left.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not know that the Bill requires very much explanation. Its origin, at all events, is, I think, present to the mind of every one. Our national conscience has been stirred by the reflection that we were actually exporting to China war like stores, guns, and ammunition which were intended to be used, and probably would be used, in destroying the lives of our fellow-countrymen or in injuring our allies. I do not think that is a tolerable condition of things, and it is to remedy that that we introduce the present Bill. I am sure neither the right hon. Gentleman opposite nor my hon. friend objects to the general policy which the Bill is intended to carry out. All that my hon. friend wants is to be satisfied as to certain detailed points which he has raised. The first of those points relates to the old discussion, so often renewed in this House, as to legislation by reference. The inconveniences of the system, of course, are obvious, and cannot be denied—it is a balance between difficulties. I feel quite sure that if my hon. friend were responsible for the Bill

231
and its conduct through the House, he would hesitate to cumber and overload the Bill with the very large number of provisions which are dealt with summarily by reference in the second clause of the Bill. Such a procedure would lead to very unnecessary discussion. I do not think the particular reference in question is obscure: it is of an extremely simple, straightforward, and plain-sailing character. I do not think that any particular complaint need be raised by my hon. friend on that score. My hon. friend also asked whether the Crown already had not by prerogative all the powers which this Bill will confer. My hon. and learned friend the Attorney General is more capable of giving an authoritative answer to that question than I am, but I am informed that this Bill is in fact really necessary if we are to prohibit these stores going to the country where fighting is going on against our countrymen, but with which, nevertheless, we are not technically at war, although we are perhaps really at war. The next question of my hon. friend was as to the extension of the Bill to coal, and whether it ought not to be so drawn as to include what are not actually warlike stores but the raw material out of which warlike stores may be made. As regards coal, I believe if the coal is to be used for warlike purposes it would come under the provisions of this Bill; it would count as a warlike store, and it would be possible for the Crown to prohibit its export. Raw materials for warlike stores are not, I think, included in the Bill, but that is a matter upon which the Attorney General will speak with more certainty. I confess I think my hon. friend in calling attention to this point has made out a good case for their inclusion, and there will be no difficulty in introducing words making the Bill more complete in this respect, and this, under certain circumstances, may be of great importance. I do not know whether the Chinese are provided with factories where raw material can rapidly and effectually be converted into warlike munitions, but if they have such the object of the Bill would not be accomplished if the component parts of warlike supplies were permitted to be exported to China from this country. As no question of policy arises, I hope the House will consent to pass the Second Reading of the Bill without unnecessary delay.
*COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid the mining interests were to a certain extent alarmed at the Bill, though he thought they entertained an exaggerated opinion of its effects. He desired to know whether it would be possible to specify a particular kind of coal without stopping the supply of all the rest. For instance, smokeless coal might be very useful for warlike purposes, and it might be possible to stop the exportation of that without interfering with other supplies.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: My hon. friend who spoke first raised the question whether all that is done by the Bill may not be done by the prerogative of the Crown without legislation. I certainly do not desire to abandon any prerogative of the Crown, but I think my hon. friend will see that we might have some interesting State trials through not having recourse to legislation, and under the circumstances, it has been thought better to proceed in the regular way by bringing this Bill before Parliament. Although in the Customs Laws Consolidation Act there is power to prohibit exportation of arms, munitions of war, and so forth, there is no power of discriminating between countries. If exercised at all the power must be exercised to prohibit exportation to all parts of the world, and what is now wanted is power to prohibit exportation to certain countries, if that should be really necessary. The hon. Member for the Ince Division asked a question as to coal, and that point was also touched upon by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. I have no hesitation in saying that steam coal, or coal suitable for use in vessels of war, would fall under the category of naval stores. The propriety of extending the Bill has been suggested. While the words which are in the Bill are considered adequate, I do not apprehend that there could be any objection to the widening of the terms so as to include all materials capable of being converted into naval or military stores. Probably discrimination such as was suggested in relation to coal might be secured by the use of the words "all or any of the articles enumerated in the Bill." If the hon. Member for King's Lynn will look at the 14th Section of the Act of 1879 he will see that there is reference to the schedule of the earlier Act. I think my

233
hon. friend will feel on reflection that it was not desirable to give in extenso all the articles already specified in the previous Acts to which reference has been made.

MILITARY LANDS BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MR. WYNDHAM: I propose to effect the object which we have been endeavouring to effect by this Bill by another method. I propose to omit the first three clauses, and on Report stage to bring up a clause which is not open to the objection which has been urged to Clause 1. I do not admit that the objection is well founded, but it will get rid of the difficulty in that way.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUELsaid the House was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for withdrawing these clauses, but ho thought some declaration as to the new clause should be made. A large number of hon. Members who were present on the Second Reading might not be in the House on the Report stage, and if a compromise was about to be made some intimation of its nature ought to be given.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid he thought the request of the hon. Member a reasonable one, but he hoped that the hon. Member would have taken it from him that in withdrawing those clauses ho would not in the new clause reopen the discussion. The proposed new clause would provide that a council which had acquired land on behalf of a corps might lease it to the corps for a period of years, so as to give the corps security on which they might borrow money to erect butts, and erect the necessary buildings. Under the existing law the Volunteer corps could not borrow, because they had not a sufficient title to enable them to give that necessary security.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUELthought the suggestion was one which would not be objected to by any local authority. At the same time, he thought the time had arrived when the Government should

245
take the matter into their own hands and provide these things at the cost of the State.
MR. MAURICE HEALYdesired to know why the new clause was not put on the Paper so that it might he discussed in the ordinary way, and also whether it was intended that it should be discussed when it came up upon the Report stage. Did the hon. Gentleman propose on that occasion to recommit the Bill in order to allow discussion?
Clauses 1, 2, and 3 negatived.
Clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:—
Question proposed, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill."
MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that on the Second Reading of the Bill he had endeavoured to explain to the House the circumstances under which the Ranges Act of 1891 became law. That Act recited that it was an Act to facilitate the acquisition of ranges for Volunteer corps and others. The Irish Members were perfectly justified in saying that it therefore should be limited to deal with the acquisition of ranges, and that consequently as Volunteers did not exist in Ireland no part of the Act should extend to Ireland. Members of the House wore justified in assuming that a Ranges Act did not deal generally with the subject of military lands or the public defence, and it was not a fair proceeding on the part of the War Department to insert a clause which did not deal with ranges or Volunteers at all. His objection was not a technical one, because, under the Military Lands Act of 1842, it was provided that when the Crown proceeded to take up the land of a subject for the purposes of defence the amount of compensation was to be assessed by a jury of his countrymen, and an elaborate procedure was set up by which the jury should fix the compensation. When Parliament returned to the subject in 1860 with a further Act for the defence of the realm, it was again repeated that whenever a difference arose between the Crown and a subject, the owner of the land to be taken should have the right of having the amount of compensation to be given decided by a jury.
246
But in the Ranges Act of 1891 Section 11 provided for the first time that when laud was acquired, not for Volunteers or ranges, but for the public defence, the Crown should have the right of de priving the subject of having a jury to fix the compensation due to him, and compelling him to resort to arbitration. That might be very good for England, where they could get thirty-five to forty-five years rental as compensation from the arbitrators; but he was sorry to say that when lands were taken from them in Ireland they could not calculate on any such fabulous sums being given as compensation. On the contrary, in some cases the scale of compensation was assessed at less than twenty-five years purchase. He was told that the Ranges Act had been repealed in 1892. Yes, every word of it had been repealed except Clause 11. That clause had been surreptitiously retained by the War Office, who wanted to deprive the people of Ireland of their land without just compensation.
New clause—
"Where proceedings are or have been taken to acquire land for military purposes either under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1900, or under any other Act, and the powers and provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, are being used for the purpose, the amount of compensation shall in all cases be settled by a jury in like manner as in the said last-mentioned Act provided."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the hon. Member for Cork had invited him to discuss the merits of a clause passed by the House of Commons in 1891. He alleged, quite truly, that, in 1892, an Act was passed which repealed the whole of the Ranges Act of 1891, with the exception of Section 11. But the Act of 1892 was a consolidating Act, brought in as such by Mr. Stanhope, and welcomed as such by Mr. Shaw Lefevre. Therefore, he ventured to say it was not a reasonable proposition on the part of the hon. Member to reopen a discussion with regard to the purchase of land for military purposes which was closed by the Act of 1892; and it was all the more un-

247
reasonable as the Bill now before the Committee was not a Purchase Bill at all. The powers under the Military Lands Act wore not so drastic as those under the Defences Act. When the Government in order to meet the convenience of the House had abandoned some of the clauses of this Bill the hon. Member was not justified in reopening a discussion closed long ago.
MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that the abandonment of two or three clauses of the Bill by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government could not have the slightest effect on his mind. He was pleased to sec that the hon. Gentleman had offered no defence whatever for the shameful transaction of the War Office in retaining that clause of the Act of 1891 in the Act of 1892; he would not have been a party to the nefarious proceeding. It surely could excite no surprise on his part that, having been tricked in 1892 by this extraordinary proceeding of the War Department, Irish Members should take the first opportunity that occurred to raise this question in debate. The hon. Gentleman said that the Act of 1892 was a consolidating Act, that the Members of the House generally were very delighted at its introduction, and that they ought not to reopen discussion upon it. But he ventured to say that not 1 per cent, of the Members of the House knew or cared what was being done by the Act of 1891. The proportion of Members interested in military lands was lamentably small, and to say that they were all panting to have a codifying Act in 1892 was a delusion. The theory of codification would not hold water for a moment. The process of codification was the embodiment into one Act of a series of Acts. But the Act of 1892 was not a codifying Act, otherwise it would have embodied the Act of 1860. The Act of 1892 was limited to a very small fraction of a very large subject. At least, the whole code of the Defence Acts, which still disfigured the Statute-book, made it a burden of a most serious kind to any unfortunate legal practitioner to advise on this subject. He had had some proceedings under them, and had had to transport dozens of volumes all over Ireland in order to make the arbitrators understand the law and procedure. The Act of 1892 was not a codifying Act; it went a small way in the
248
direction of codification, but carefully omitted out of its purview this question of Section 11 of the Act of 1891. He was therefore entitled to ask the Government to address themselves to this question as to whether when the lauds of an individual were being taken by the Crown for public purposes the man ought not to have the right to have his compensation fixed by a jury. The hon. Gentleman avoided that question. He had drawn attention to the fact that that right was given to the subject in 1842 and again in 1860, and that it was not till 1891 that it entered the heads of the War Office to say that the Crown had the right of taking away a man's property without a constitutional appeal to a jury, and they did that not in an open above-board fashion but by a trick. I am sorry that I should have to raise this matter at a time which is not very convenient to Members of the House generally, but the hon. Member opposite cannot complain of the action of the Irish Members who are availing themselves of the first opportunity they have had of exposing a transaction of this kind.
MR. JASPER MOREsaid that it was very interesting to see the hon. Member coming forward in that House as the apologist of Irish landowners.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: The hon. Member opposite is under the impression that the only persons who have an interest in Irish land are Irish landlords. I assure him that he is quite mistaken, and I do not for a moment raise this question for the benefit of Irish landlords. I would be very sorry to have land taken from a landlord without fair and proper compensation, but I bog to inform the hon. Gentleman that the person in whom I am interested and for whose protection I have raised this discussion to-night is not the Irish landlord but the Irish tenant. While the Irish landlord can fairly calculate on getting substantial justice on a transaction of this kind, I am sorry to say that the Irish tenant has no such protection, and when he appeals to a jury he cannot calculate on that generous justice which is meted out to Cabinet Ministers and others when their land is taken from them.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. MAURICE HEALY,in moving a new clause as to the way in which the costs in connection with legal proceedings should be paid, said: I am not competent to say whether the matter referred to in this clause is a grievance existing in England as it unquestionably exists in Ireland, but I apprehend that it is a grievance common to the two countries. I do not think that any man who considers the matter fairly can come to any other conclusion than that there is a substantial grievance to be deal with. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not meet this Amendment as he did the last, by stating that this Bill does not deal with the subject of land purchase. This measure is entitled "An Act to amend the Military Lands Act, 1892," and the hon. Member has described that Act as a codifying Act, and therefore, in his view, it covers the whole field of the acquisition of military lands. I raise to-night a question which, no doubt, does not directly arise out of any clause in this Act, but which is certainly covered by the title of the Act, and which, it certainly cannot be denied, is a proper subject for consideration when any topic connected with land is being discussed. When a railway company or any public undertaking of that kind goes to law with a private individual to enforce a process of compulsory purchase, that undertaking goes to law with the risks as to costs of an ordinary litigant. If he is beaten in the litigation lie is beaten at the peril of costs to himself. On the contrary, when the Crown goes to law, acting in what they conceive to be the public interest, if you can succeed in satisfying the court that they are proceeding against you in a legal manner, you are met with the legal doctrine that Her Majesty's judges have no power to give costs against the Crown, and you have the luxury of defraying out of your own pocket the costs of a litigation in which you have succeeded. If there is one litigant who ought not to escape costs it is the Crown, which has the whole resources of the Empire at its back. Some authorities on jurisprudence are of opinion that the State should bear the costs of all litigants, and that no one who litigates on a question of law should be at any expense in doing it. Parliament has never accepted that doctrine as regards litigation generally, and the law is that if people take the risks of litigation they must pay
250
the costs if they are beaten. Is there any reason why the Crown should be exempted from that doctrine? I will toll the right hon. Gentleman of a particular case. It was the case of the Belhaven land. The Attorney General for Ireland is familiar with the litigation connected with it. It entered into the heads of the Crown that it would be a proper thing to take away the land of the tenants, and have the compensation assessed by two resident magistrates. I ventured to question that procedure in a court of law. I am bound to say that the resident magistrates promptly decided that the Crown wore erroneous in their procedure. The Irish Attorney General took me into the Queen's Bench for the purpose of compelling those magistrates to hear the cases. I met him in the Queen's Bench, and the judges there decided that the Crown were not entitled to take the cases in that way. Having decided in my favour after a long and elaborate argument, the court could not give costs against the Crown, and it was held that I should bear the costs out of my own pocket. The Crown, acting on a representation from the court, paid me my costs. That is what I would expect from the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, whom I have never known do anything but what was perfectly fair. I submit that when the Crown is defeated in litigation of that kind it should bear the costs.
New clause—
"Where proceedings are or have been taken to acquire land for military purposes, either under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1900, or under any other Act, and also where any legal proceedings are taken in connection with or arising out of such proceedings, the Secretary of State or other person or authority acquiring the land or taking such proceedings shall be subject to the same liability to pay costs in connection with such proceedings as any person or authority acquiring lands under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts relating to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has again invited me to defend the Defence Acts. For the purpose of putting

251
my position to the Committee, all I need say is that the Bill before us is a Bill to amend the Military Lands Act, 1892, and not one to amend the Defence Acts. Under the powers conferred by the Defence Acts lands can be taken and the price settled afterwards. They are drastic powers which enable the Government to take land if necessary for the purposes of emergency. These Acts are not before us. With all deference to the hon. Member, I will not undertake the task of disproving that the Defence Acts need amendment. In my opinion they are very valuable Acts, but we are not now discussing them. My point is that this is not a convenient opportunity for opening a discussion on the Defence Acts, with which the Bill we are discussing has nothing to do.
MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid the hon. Gentleman failed to realise that both the Defence Acts and the Military Lands Act only partially protected the person whose property was being taken away. It might be said that he was magnifying the importance of one particular set of cases in which lands were taken compulsorily. He assured the Committee that that was not so. The very contrary was the fact. In nearly every case in which lands had been taken compulsorily in recent years it had been necessary to resort to the ordinary legal tribunals to litigate some point. When an emergency of that kind arose, and when a subject was dragged into court by the Crown to litigate his rights, he ought to be indemnified against the costs of the litigation when he succeeded.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY moved a clause providing that the justice determining compensation should not be a resident magistrate. He asked the Chief Secretary to embody this provision in the Bill, as it only asked that when the Crown wore taking land they should not have the right to assess compensation by their own paid magistrates. He did not wish to make any attack upon resident magistrates generally. He wished to discuss the question in an entirely impersonal way, but, seeing that their position was dependent on the will of the Crown, they would not be free in exercising their judgment. How was it that
252
such a monstrosity ever came to be embodied in this Code? When the Defence Acts were passed originally there was no idea whatever that compensation should ever be assessed by magistrates. It was twenty or thirty years after—he thought in the Act of 1860—that a clause was inserted giving the Crown the right to proceed under the Lands Clauses Act.
New clause—
"Where proceedings are or have been taken to acquire land for military purposes, either under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1900, or under any other Act, and the powers and provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, are being used for the purpose, neither of the justices determining the compensation pursuant to the 121st Section of the last-mentioned Act shall be a resident magistrate appointed in pursuance of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1836."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. WYNDHAMsaid this new clause and the others which had been moved by the hon. Member were tantamount to amending the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, and the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1900, and this was not the time for discussing such a question. There was no land purchase provision in the Bill now before the House, and that being so, he asked the hon. Member not to regard him as disrespectful if he declined to argue the question on its merits. This was not the moment to go into the merits of the question raised, and if the hon. Member wished to do so, he must take another opportunity in another session.
Question put, and negatived.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not know whether

253
the Chief Secretary is prepared to make an announcement which will do away at once with my opposition to this measure, that he will consent to leave out the last sub-section, which proposes to enact the renewal of the Peace Preservation Act. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make that announcement, the Bill, so far as I am concerned, will go through without any further discussion. I assume from the silence of the right hon. Gentleman his refusal to grant that request, and I have nothing to do but to proceed with my opposition to this Bill. This is a measure for the purpose of continuing laws which were enacted for a certain limited period of time, and which will expire if this Bill be not passed into law. I understand that the principle of this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is that it simply provides for the prolongation of measures of a more or less non-contentious and what is called practical character, and that it is not a measure to be used for the purpose of continuing practically without discussion any measures which are of a strongly contentious and highly important character. I therefore hold, or at least I would strongly urge, that the Government are departing from the natural and real character of this particular measure by introducing into it the continuation of the Peace Preservation Acts of 1881 and 1886. Everybody knows—I do not enlarge on the point—that those Acts deal with what are the fundamental liberties of the subject of this realm, because, after all, the right to bear arms——
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is aware that it is not in order to discuss any particular Bill contained in the schedule on the Second Reading. That must be done on a motion to strike such Bill out of the schedule when the Bill is in Committee. Otherwise there might be forty or fifty discussions on as many Bills on the motion for the Second Reading.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I meant to address myself simply in general terms to the character of one of the measures, without going into details. Of course, I
quite appreciate that it would be entirely out of order to discuss the details, but I think I would be in order in referring in general terms to the character of some of the measures included in this Bill, and contending that these measures are not of the class which should be dealt with in this particular form. It was to that point, and that point only, that I meant to limit my observations; but, perhaps, my remarks led you to the conclusion that I was going to enter into the merits or details of a particular measure. I have no such intention. I simply wish to describe in general terms measures of a character which ought not to be in a Bill of this kind.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is proposing to discuss a measure on the ground that it ought not to be in the schedule. I am afraid the hon. Member would not be in order in taking that course.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: That is your ruling, and, of course, I submit. I must at present confine myself to the general observation that I think the Government are treating the people of Ireland rather shabbily in trying to push a Bill of this kind in this particular form. I beg to give notice that I shall discuss the character of the Bill and move an Amendment with respect to this particular measure when we reach the Committee stage.
MR. TULLYsupported his hon. friend in objecting to the unfair and exceptional treatment of Ireland by this measure. It was proposed to re-enact expiring laws with regard to Ireland, which would not be tolerated for a single moment with regard to England and Scotland. He would, when the right time came, support his hon. friend in asking the House to strike out the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Acts from the list of measures proposed to be continued.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 125:. Noes, 31. (Division List No. 251.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Asher, Alexander

Balcarres, Lord

Beckett, Ernest William

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

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

Bigwood, James

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Purvis, Robert

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Griffith, Ellis J.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Brassey, Albert

Hamilton, Rt Hon. Lord George

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Richards, Henry Charles

Butcher, John George

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep')

Caldwell, James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W

Carson, Rt. Hn Sir Edw. H.

Hazell, Walter

Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas Thomson

Causton, Richard Knight

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

Round, James

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jones, Wm (Carnarvonshire)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Lawrence, Wm. P. (Liverpool)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Skewes, Cox, Thomas

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Stephens, Henry Charles

Colville, John

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Strachey, Edward

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Lucas-Shad well, William

Strauss, Arthur

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Curzon, Viscount

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Davies, Sir HoratioD(Chatham

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Douglas, Ht. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Thornton, Percy M.

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tollemache, Henry James

Fergusson, Rt. H n. Sir J. (Man'r

M'Killop, James

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Finch, George H.

Marks, Henry Hananel

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Fisher, William Hayes

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C E(Taunt'n

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Wharton, Rt. Hon. JohnLloyd

Flower, Ernest

Monckton, Edward Philip

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Gedge, Sydney

Morton, ArthurH. A(Deptford)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Muntz, Philip A.

Wylie, Alexander

Gibbs, Hn. AGH (City of Lond.)

Murray, Rt HnA. Graham(Bute

Wyndham, George

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Yoxall, James Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Parkes, Ehenezer

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.

Emmott, Alfred

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Atherley-Jones, L.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Runciman, Walter

Billson, Alfred

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Macaleese, Daniel

Sinclair, Capt John(Forfarshire

Brigg, John

MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen'sC

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Cawley, Frederick

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Channing, Francis Allston

Moss, Samuel

Tully, Jasper

Crilly, Daniel

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Woods, Samuel

Dewar, Arthur

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Doogan, P. C.

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

O'Malley, William

Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Duckworth, James

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill read the third time and passed.

MONEY-LENDING BILL [Lords].
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
MR. MARKSsaid he desired to move a new clause, which was as follows—
"No company limited by shares, and registered under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1898, shall carry on the business of a money-lender."
The reason for the Bill was the necessity for revealing at all stages of the business the identity of a money-lender. It had been urged that most of the evils which arose from money-lending might be mitigated, if not entirely cured, if the money-lender were under an obligation to

257
deal exclusively in his own name, and at all stages of the business to disclose his identity in a plain, unmistakable manner. The advantages which would accrue if such a system were in force were obvious. In the first place a money-lender trading in his own name would be so to speak under a bond for his own good behaviour. If he committed an act of dishonesty or treachery he would be practically cutting himself off from all future business, and any misconduct on his part and any litigation in which he was engaged would be before the public, and any penalty the law enforced against him would practically moan the loss of the goodwill of his business. It was within the recollection of all familiar with recent money-lending scandals, that one of the greatest evils connected with the business was the practice of a moneylender lending in an assumed name, afterwards approaching the borrower in another assumed name, and continuing the transaction in a third assumed name. A money-lender trading in his own name could not do any of these things, and therefore it would be an important safeguard if his identity should be disclosed. The question was, did the Bill sufficiently insure that disclosure. There was a provision in the Bill that a money-lender should register himself in his own or his usual trade name, and that he should do business in that name, and in that name only; that he should take securities in that name and that name only, and that if he took securities under any other name it should be competent for the courts to set aside the transaction. Therefore, every inducement was set before the money-lender to trade in his own name. But there was no provision in the Bill to prevent a money lender from registering himself as a limited liability company. If he registered himself as "A Banking Company" or "B Bank" that would be his usual trade name, and he would be justified in trading in it, and if the money-lender avails himself of the Limited Liability Acts, it would be practically impossible not only to disclose, but even to discover his identity. The money-lender had only to secure a solicitor and seven signatories to the Memorandum of Association to become a limited company, with all the powers of a limited company behind him. It might be only a one-man company, but whether that was so or not, it was a limited company protected by the Limited
258
Liability Acts. Having issued his seven shares, nothing could prevent him from taking blank transfers of them back into his own name or the name of a nominee, and the bulk of the shares might be issued as bearer shares. Under such circumstances what power would enable the court to get at the person who was really engaged in money-lending? It might be said that the money-lender must have capital, but even that was not always required. A one-man company was formed, seven shares were issued to the signatories, and the balance of the shares might be issued to bearer and be in the hands of some nominee, and the money-lender might then proceed to lend money on debentures. The company would have no money at all, and if it were sued no penalty could be recovered, because there would be no capital to draw from. A man in such a position could, it was quite clear, set the fundamental provisions of the Bill at nought. The remedy might be a drastic one, but it was the only remedy. The Government admitted that the only way to put an end to the evils of money-lending was to compel the money-lender to disclose his identity. He had shown that if the money-lender registered himself as a limited liability company, he could not be compelled to disclose his identity. The new clause now proposed would enable the courts to compel the moneylender to disclose his identity. Would the Government accept the clause and give effect to their own professed intention, or would they refuse the clause and admit that the Bill could not accomplish its avowed object?
New clause—
"No company limited by shares, and registered under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1898, shall carry on the business of a money-lender."—(Mr. Marks.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
Sin ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the House would not accept the new clause. He agreed with what his hon. friend had said about the evils of one-man companies, which, however, were not confined to companies engaged in the business of money-lending. What they were endeavouring to secure by the Bill was that the identity of the person or the

259
company carrying on money-lending business should be known. The hon. Member had described the clause as drastic. He thought it was the most drastic over proposed, because it provided that no company, whether in existence at the present time or to be formed in the future, should carry on the business of money-lending. Was there ever such wholesale confiscation? There were many perfectly respectable companies carrying on the business of money-lending, and occupying good positions.
MR. MARKSsaid that the companies to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred would not come within the Bill.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he was not sure of that. The proposal of his hon. friend was that all companies should have the right taken away from them of carrying on the business of money-lending. Why should not companies properly formed be allowed to carry on such business as long as proper securities were taken against abuse? Why should it be said arbitrarily that a particular branch of business, perfectly legitimate in its way if respectably conducted, and most useful to the poorer classes of the community, should not be carried on by a joint stock company the identity of which would be thoroughly well known?
Question put, and negatived.
MR. BECKETTsaid he hoped the Attorney General would see his way to accept the clause he now proposed to move, inasmuch as it would reduce the possibility of abuse. The object of the clause was to prevent any money-lender who had made a loan from increasing the rate of interest if the loan were renewed. The borrower was in a fair position to make a bargain in the first instance, but when he went to have the loan renewed he was practically in the power of the money-lender. Cases had been known where a man had borrowed £100, had paid back £120 and then owed £150, and such cases had arisen because the money-lender charged an exorbitant rate of interest on each renewal. Ho thought it would prevent many borrowers from becoming the victims of harsh and unconscionable money-lenders if the money-lenders were
260
not permitted to raise the rate of interest on the renewal of the loan.
New clause—
"Should the borrower be unable to repay the principal of the loan, and the interest agreed upon at the specified date, and come to the money-lender for a renewal of the loan, the money-lender shall not be allowed to charge a higher rate of interest upon renewal than the rate agreed upon when the loan was first; made."—(Mr. Beckett.)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second, time."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the House would not accept the clause. They had been very careful in avoiding everything that had the appearance of fixing by law the rate of interest, and now his hon. friend calmly asked the House to provide that a money-lender should never charge more than he had charged in the first instance.
MR. BECKETTasked leave to withdraw the clause.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.)THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.) moved—
"In Clause 1, page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out 'this Act comes into operation,' and insert 'the commencement of this Act.'"
Amendment agreed to.
*MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid the House would remember that the Bill provided that judicial discretion should, be conferred upon judges of the High Court, and also of the inferior courts,, to set aside a money-lending contract if the transaction were harsh and unconscionable, and to substitute a judicial contract. He did not propose to disturb the first part of the two-fold provision, but he submitted that if a judge were to be given discretion to set aside a contract if he considered that the charges were excessive, and if he found certain other elements present in the transaction, it was most important that the conditions should be very carefully defined under which any judicial tribunal should be given

261
such an extraordinary and novel power. He should like, in the interests of our system of law, to make a protest against the dangerous novelty of such a power being for the first time conferred upon our tribunals. The Bill sought to carry judicial discretion into the domain of legal principle. It was a precedent of most evil omen, and if Conservative legislation of the next century were to follow the lines indicated in the Bill it was difficult to discern where it would stop. The sanctity of contract was altogether ignored, and the fact that a bargain was made between persons quite capable of forming a judgment for themselves was dismissed, and the judge was empowered to substitute for that contract another contract which he thought better. He should like to follow for a moment the line of argument on which such a provision was founded. The amount charged for the loan was excessive; an excessive charge for a loan was a harsh transaction, a harsh transaction was unconscionable in its action, and, therefore, ought to be set aside. Apply that analogy to a contract of tenancy. The rent charged was excessive; to charge an excessive rent was a harsh transaction, a harsh transaction was unconscionable in its action, and therefore the transaction should be set aside. He was astonished that the Government should, with such a light heart, have imported into a measure of such small utility a principle so dangerous in its essence and so liable to be extended in unexpected directions. Of course, he was aware that some question might arise as to the moaning of the expression "harsh and unconscionable." The only light passed on its meaning was thrown by the First Lord of the Treasury, who said that "harsh and unconscionable" simply meant that county court judges should have the power which was formerly exercised by courts of equity. If that were so, why should it not be plainly stated in the Bill? Why should such an inexplicable expression as "harsh and unconscionable" be used instead of enacting in plain terms that all tribunals called upon to administer judicial functions in connection with the Act should be clothed with the jurisdiction appertaining to courts of equity? Such a construction would not, however, be adopted by the Attorney General, because if it could be shown that the courts already had that jurisdiction the whole argument would fall to the
262
ground. That they had such a jurisdiction already was perfectly clear. The High Court and County Courts, by Section 89 of the Judicature Act of 1873, could grant relief from any bargain on the same equitable principles as were applied by courts of equity in ancient times. Therefore, the provision, except in so far as it framed procedure, was not in the least required, and the use of such an inexplicable expression would only lead to confusion. If it was not applicable to the case, the question arose whether they ought not in this measure to indicate what were the conditions on which the county court judge might act. He submitted that in any view some definition was needed, whether the principles were equitable or not in their character, and that it was most desirable that the county court judges, who would have largely to administer this Act, should have some assistance and some definition of principle. It was not easy to do so by means of a simple clause, but he had endeavoured to do so in the Amendment he had submitted. He would call attention to the terms of the Amendment. In the first place, where a county court judge was satisfied on inquiry that the loan was induced by fraud or deceit, he might set it aside as onerous. Then if he found that the borrower had not full knowledge and comprehension of the terms of the loan and of all the facts material to the transaction, he might say that on these grounds the borrower had not his eyes open, and was not on equal terms with the lender, and he might review the transaction. In the third place, whore the borrower was, to the knowledge of the money-lender, effecting the loan secretly, or was desirous of concealing the same or the circumstances connected therewith from some parson, the county court judge should have the power to re-open the transaction. Supposing the money-lender was appealed to by some person who had committed a theft, and that the money to be borrowed was to replace the money stolen, it was obvious that the lender and the borrower were not on equal terms. And so, if the money was borrowed by some person with a view to conceal some disgraceful transaction, or to conceal the loan from his trustees, that placed him at the mercy of the lender, and if this inequality in the relationship of the parties to the contract was established it was a clear case for re-

263
opening the transaction. Lastly, in a case where the borrower was, to the knowledge of the money-lender, by reason of age, inexperience, ignorance of business, or mental or physical or moral infirmity, acting at a disadvantage in negotiating the loan—if they had a sharp man of the world on the one hand, and on the other an improvident and ignorant youth, who was an easy prey to the arts of the moneylender—pressure on the one hand and an easy victim on the other—obviously these were conditions under which the terms of the bargain ought not to be upheld. It might be said that in all these cases the transactions were "harsh and unconscionable." If that was so, why not substitute a definite and intelligible definition of what was "harsh and unconscionable"? If "harsh and unconsionable" in the Bill meant that which he suggested, why not insert the explanation and delete those words? If it meant something else there was no doubt whatever that the discretion which, might be employed by the county court judge would be carried into the domain of legal principle. The Amendment proposed in Committee upstairs to allow an appeal had not been inserted. The effect of that omission would be that in each county court district the law would vary according to the views of the judge. One judge would decide that these transactions were harsh and unconscionable, and ought not be enforced; and another judge would in every case insist that they should be enforced. In point of fact, the money-lenders would disappear from certain districts where the views of the judge were strict, and frequent the districts where the views of the judge were lax. He invited the Government to make some effort to narrow the use of the vague expression, "harsh and unconscionable."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 14, to leave out the words, 'the transaction is harsh and unconscionable,' and insert the words, (a)the loan was induced by fraud or deceit; or (b)the borrower bad not full knowledge and comprehension of the terms of the loan and of all facts material to the transaction; or (c) the borrower was to the knowledge of the money-lender effecting the said loan secretly, or was desirous of concealing the same or the circumstances connected therewith from some person; or (d)the borrower was to the knowledge of the moneylender by reason of age, inexperience, ignor-
264
ance of business, or mental, physical, or moral infirmity, acting at a disadvantage in negotiating the said loan,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Lawson Walton.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Bill."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid there was one thing which his hon. and learned friend had said which did not surprise him, and that was that ho was not enamoured with the wording of his own clause. He confessed that his hon. friend was quite right in regarding his own clause with feelings of great coldness, which on closer acquaintance might ripen into a freezing dislike. Having deprecated the novelty in the Bill, he proceeded to propose a startling novelty of his own, which would be most mischievous. His hon. and learned friend said that the jurisdiction of the county courts to sot aside contracts as "harsh and unconscionable" was unknown. Had he never hoard of the equitable jurisdiction of the courts of equity in respect of such contracts, and might not that jurisdiction be beneficially exercised in the county courts?
MR. LAWSON WALTONasked if the Attorney General meant to say that the ancient jurisdiction of the courts of equity was to be extended to the county courts? If so, he would withdraw his Amendment if that were inserted in the Bill.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the jurisdiction enjoyed by the courts of equity was closely analogous to that with which this section intended to clothe the county courts. His hon. and learned friend said that was unnecessary, because the county courts already enjoyed that jurisdiction under the Judicature Act.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid his hon. and learned friend, if he looked into the matter, would find that, by the Judicature Act of 1873, the county courts now enjoyed the jurisdiction of the equity courts.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he was reluctant to continue a technical argument of this kind. If any jurisdiction had not been exercised by the county courts, it

265
would be for the reason that they did not possess it. The equitable jurisdiction with which the county courts had been clothed had been confined to certain specific matters, but not among them to this question of what was "harsh and Unconscionable." What wore the proposals of the lion, and learned Gentleman? The first was that where the loan was induced by fraud or deceit. But every court of equity would set aside a bargain induced by deceit, and if induced by fraud it would be set aside at once. The next proposal was that the county court judge was to have jurisdiction to reopen the transaction if the borrower had not full knowledge and comprehension of the terms of the loan and of all facts material to the transaction. But that was precisely one of the elements with which the county court judge would have to deal. Then the third proposal was that if the borrower was to the knowledge of the money-lender effecting the loan secretly, or was desirous of concealing the same, or the circumstances connected therewith from some person. But suppose a man of mature years was desirous of raising a loan and anxious not to communicate the fact to his wife, that clause would give a ground for setting it aside. Again the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that if the borrower was to the knowledge of the money-lender, by reason of age, inexperience, ignorance of business, or mental, physical, or moral infirmity, acting at a disadvantage in negotiating a loan, the bargain might be reopened or set aside. But he would point out that a good many of the matters so painfully enumerated in that proposal were matters which could be considered by any court exercising equitable jurisdiction. It was in the last degree inadvisable to define such terms as were contained in the Amendment. It had been said by a great judge that the courts of equity had been rather careful not to define exactly what their powers were, because to do so would be to give directions to those who were desirous of evading their jurisdiction. His hon. and learned friend said that there should be an appeal, but the general law gave an appeal in matters over £20. He hoped that the picture which his hon. and learned friend had drawn as to different systems of equity being administered in county courts was too highly charged and would not represent the true state of things.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he hoped they would not have many more of these essays on law. It was already past twelve o'clock. The Bill was really a good one, although it might be made better; but time was an element in making the Bill good or bad. He had come there that evening as a humble follower of the Financial Secretary of the Local Government Board—or whatever his official title might be—and he was going to vote for the words "hard and unconscionable," simply because they happened to be in the Bill. His hon. and learned friend differed from the hon. and learned Attorney General; but it was always the case with those lawyers that they never could agree with one another. The difference between his hon. and learned friend and the Government as to the interpretation of "harsh and unconscionable" was the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee, and did not strike at the principle of the Bill, and as it was now after twelve o'clock he hoped they would come to a division.
*MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid the hon. Member who talked about essays on law in regard to this Bill forgot that they were altering the law, and were bound to take care that those alterations were for the people's advantage. The Bill came down from the House of Lords in March, and might very easily have been sent to the Standing Committee on Law soon after, instead of not till the month of July. It was the duty of the House, no matter however long they had to sit, not to pass the Bill without discussion. He did not altogether like the Amendment proposed by his hon. and gallant friend, but it was a great deal better than the words in the Bill. However clever the debating speech of the Attorney General might be there was this broad fact, that everything was to be loft to the discretion of the county court judge; he was not to be bound by any previous decision, even of the courts of equity. He was given the power to exercise his own fatherly or grandfatherly discretion, and to say, "In my opinion this transaction is harsh and unconscionable, and I will set it aside." The Amendment tried to state the grounds on which the judge might hold that the bargain was "harsh and unconscionable." The courts of equity wore bound by a series of decisions which

267
had been given in the courts for the last 300 or 400 years. It was said that there was an appeal, but it was an appeal only on the law and not on the fact. The judge might say, "I hold as a matter of fact that the bargain is harsh and unconscionable," and there would be no appeal. Although he thought the Amendment could be very much improved if it became a substantive motion, he would support it.
MR. H. S. FOSTERthought that this Amendment raised such important considerations in regard to the principal provisions of the Bill that the House would not be wasting time if it spent the whole evening in its consideration. They were now at a quarter past twelve considering the Bill, and every hon. Member was practically requested to sit down as soon as he possibly could. By that means the Bill might be passed, but he doubted whether lit would conduce to good legislation. The work was being scamped, and scamped work was work always badly done. The Amendment was to omit from the clause the very unusual words "harsh and unconscionable." The clause proposed to put on Her Majesty's judges the onus of saying whether a particular bargain was in their opinion a "harsh" bargain, whatever that might mean. The law could already deal with a bargain in which one party had the advantage of the other, or in which one party, by means of his position, had exercised duress on the other. But in future, if the Act passed, one party might question a bargain not on the ground that he was misled or that he did not know what he was doing when he entered into it, but on the ground that on reconsideration he considered the bargain a harsh one, and he might appeal to Her Majesty's judges to pronounce the opinion ex post facto that the bargain was a harsh one. It was seriously proposed that in future the duty should be cast upon judges of saying that a bargain was harsh and ought to be modified. Although they were dealing with a class against whom it was easy to excite prejudice and who had very few advocates in the House or out of it, he ventured to say that if such a provision was sanctioned it would be absolutely impossible to carry on the business of money-lending. Why should not Parliament also deal with persons dealing in other commodities? The money-
268
lender dealt in money and had to deal in the open market, and doubtless he made the best use he could of his commodity. But what right had Parliament to pick out one particular class of trader and say that its bargains—not only the bargains of the fraudulent money-lender but of the class generally—should be revised by the courts? If such a provision were passed it would be impossible to stop with the present Bill. There were hundreds of transactions known to every Member of the House in which the profits far exceeded the profits connected with money-lending. Was it proposed to inquire whether traders had entered into "harsh and unconscionable" bargains because they sold goods at a price far in excess of the price to which the goods had fallen when the payment fell due? Everyone connected with business knew that the sanctity of contract was the mainstay of commerce, and were bargains to be revised simply because they turned out to be unprofitable, and were they to be made to appear harsh for one party to enforce because values had fallen? They were now imposing on the judges of the land the duty of revising contracts apart altogether from fraud or deceit. That was a very serious and a very dangerous departure which he for one would deprecate. He did not think there was any justification for the clause. The Attorney General himself had admitted that the majority of the money-lending class were respectable men, and therefore he supposed that a money-lender was entitled to justice. In his opinion, in passing this clause the House was embarking on a very dangerous course.
*MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is not the clause, but the question whether the words "harsh and unconscionable" should be left out and other words substituted.
MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid he would endeavour to follow the ruling of the Chair. It was his intention to confine himself to the actual Amendment, but he was endeavouring to show that if the words remained in the Bill the result would be that a contract which had been entered into by two parties within their rights, and well aware of what they were bargaining for, would be subject to revision, and that injustice would thereby be inflicted on one class of Her Majesty's

269
subjects. He was endeavouring to plead for justice for the money-lender. He hoped that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be supported, although he supposed it was hopeless to expect it would be carried, because the Government desired to make the matter a question of confidence in themselves. But that did not absolve him from
*MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he proposed to move as an Amendment that after the words "harsh and unconscionable" there should be inserted the words "and was entered into under circumstances in which courts of equity would give relief." It was, he said, now clear that the words "harsh and unconscionable" were not in-
the duty of calling attention to what he considered the most unreasonable, dangerous, and unjust proposal contained in the clause.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 99; Noes, 32. (Division List No. 255.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Parkes, Ebenezer

Asher, Alexander

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Pease, Herb. Pike(Darlington)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Penn, John

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Balcarres, Lord

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Purvis, Robert

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Rentoul, James Alexander

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Ridley, Rt Hon. Sir Matthew W.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas Thomson

Brassey, Albert

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hazell, Walter

Round, James

Bullard, Sir Harry

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Batcher John George

Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

Seeley, Charles Hilton

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Side bottom, William (Derbys.)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Labouchere, Henry

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

Stephens, Henry Charles

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Macaleese, Daniel

Thornton, Percy M.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Macdona, John Cumming

Tomlinson, Wm. Ed W. Murray

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Ure, Alexander

Crilly, Daniel

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

M'Killop, James

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton

Curzon, Viscount

Marks, Henry Hananel

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Monckton, Edward Philip

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

More, Robt J. (Shropshire)

Wylie, Alexander

Emmott, Alfred

Muntz, Philip A.

Wyndham, George

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Ferguson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manch'r

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Finch, George H.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

O'Dowd, John

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Fisher, William Hayes

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Gedge, Sydney

O'Malley, William

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Beckett, Ernest William

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cawley, Frederick

Griffith, Ellis J.

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Tennant, Harold John

Colville, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Thomas, David Alfred(M'rthyr

Dewar, Arthur

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A.(Q'n's.C.

Tully, Jasper

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Doogan, P. C.

Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Duckworth, James

Moss, Samuel

Mr. Lawson Walton and Mr. Billson.

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

tended to confer jurisdiction, but only that every county court should administer the jurisdiction of a court in equity. When that ambiguity was cleared away the Bill might have an intelligible form given to it, and instead of depending on a vague inquiry which was bounded only by the collective judicial conscience of

271
fifty-six county court judges, they might have certain definite principles with which they were quite familiar to guide them.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 14, after the word 'unconscionable,' to insert the words 'and was entered into under circumstances in which the courts of equity would give relief.'"—(Mr Lawson Walton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid there was not the same objection to this as to the last Amendment; but he would suggest that the form of the words should be "or is otherwise such that the courts of equity would give relief."
*MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he would accept the Attorney General's Amendment and withdraw his own.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. H. S. FOSTERwas glad that the Government had recognised the principle contended for; and the concession was an important one. He took it that the words of the Attorney General's Amendment would really govern the words "harsh and unconscionable."
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONwelcomed the Amendment as ho now understood it to mean that it was desirable to give to the county courts every conceivable jurisdiction of the courts of equity in reopening transactions. He had doubted whether the word "unconscionable" had all the significance which the Attorney General had attached to it, and the new words would meet any shortcomings if the words previously used were not wide enough.
Sir ROBERT FINLAY'SAmendment was agreed to.
MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid the object of the Amendment he now moved was to identify the account as the account which was being dealt with in respect of the transaction to be reopened. There was an impression that the clause proposed not only to confer power to reopen the particular account which was the subject
272
of the litigation, but also to reopen any previous account.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 19, after the word 'any,' to insert the word 'such.'"—(Mr. H. S. Foster.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'such' be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the Amendment was quite unnecessary.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid he desired to move an Amendment the object of which was that if the plaintiff or borrower applied for relief the courts should be empowered to set off any sums due by him to the money lender in respect of some other transaction against any award of the courts. When the matter was discussed in Committee it appeared to be accepted that there would be a set-off, but grave doubt was expressed as to whether that would be so, and he therefore moved his Amendment which, expressly provided for it.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 25, after the word 'it,' to insert the words, 'subject to any oilier sum which the Court may find due from the debtor, and which sum shall be allowed as a set-off.'"—(Mr. H. S. Foster.)
Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was not a lawyer, but it was perfectly clear to him that when an account was taken between the parties airy judge would allow a set-off.
*MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid he was a lawyer, but he would not profess to-give an opinion on the subject, especially as lawyers belonging to what was called the higher branch of the profession differed regarding it. Everyone knew that when a judge ordered a defendant to pay a sum of money, the defendant could not set up against that judgment that the plaintiff owed him money. He could not understand the objection to the Amendment, which would only make certain that which the Secretary to the Local Government Board declared to be clear, but which in the opinion of lawyers was not so.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid him that the words were necessary in order to secure that there should be a set-off.
MR. LAWRENCEin explaining the next Amendment, said that it seemed to him that the clause as it stood was very much too extensive, for reopening an account. As he understood it, it might be that the transaction had been closed for ten or fifteen years and a new transaction entered into; and if that new transaction came up for litigation the original transaction might be reopened. That appeared to him to be altogether a mistake.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 5, after the word 'lent,' to insert the words 'Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise the reopening of any statement, settlement of account, or any
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 5; Noes,104. (Division List No. 256.)

AYES.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Mr. Harry Foster and Mr. Sydney Gedge.

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Emmott, Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Asher, Alexander

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

O'Dowd, John

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Finch, George H.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Parkes, Ebenezer

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fisher, William Hayes

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Penn, John

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Purvis, Robert

Beckett, Ernest William

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Rentoul, James Alexander

Billson, Alfred

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Griffith, Ellis J.

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hamilton, Rt. Hon Lord George

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Brassey, Albert

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Round, James

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Butcher, John George

Hazell, Walter

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Caldwell, James

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.

Horniman, Frederick John

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Labouchere, Henry

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Thornton, Percy M.

Channing, Francis Allston

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Tully, Jasper

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lowther, Rt Hn J W(Cumberl'd

Ure, Alexander

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Macaleese, Daniel

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Colviile, John

Macdona, John Camming

Welby, Lt. -Col. A. CE(Taunt'n

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Crilly, Daniel

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim

Wylie, Alexander

Curzon, Viscount

M'Killop, James

Wyngham, George

Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Dewar, Arthur

Morton, Edw. J. C.(Devonport)

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Moss, Samuel

Doogan, P. C.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Duckworth, James

Nicol, Donald Ninian

agreement unless within two years of the date of the transaction complained of.'"—(Mr. Lawrence.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. Some of the worst cases were those in which by new transactions the account went on rolling bigger and bigger.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WARRin proposing the next Amendment, said he attached the greatest possible impor-

275
tance to Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, but he submitted that it would be ineffective unless the borrower or surety was able to make application to the court, whether the loan was mature or not. When a borrower came to consult his friends and they desired to come to some arrangement, but found that the loan would not mature for a considerable time, it would be monstrous that the extortionate interest should keep on running until the loan matured.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 5, after 'lent,' to insert, 'And the court shall have power, not with-standing any provision or agreement to the contrary, to entertain any application under this Act by the borrower or surety or other person liable, notwithstanding that the time for repayment of the loan, or any instalment thereof, may not have arrived.'"—(Mr. Warr.)
Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I accept the Amendment.
MR. H. S. FOSTERasked why the Government resisted this Amendment in Committee, and accepted it now.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he doubted whether the words were necessary, but he was satisfied, on consideration, that they could do no harm.
Question put, and agreed to.
A formal Amendment made.
*MR. BUTCHERsaid his object in moving the Amendment standing next on the Paper was, as a friend of the Bill, who desired to see it shaped in the interest of all parties, to secure that there should be an effective appeal in proper cases from the decision of the county court judge. By the Bill they were giving to the inferior courts a very wide, extended, and delicate jurisdiction for the first time. This jurisdiction has hitherto been exercised by the judges of the Chancery Division, but their decisions have been subject to appeal not only on questions of law, but on questions of fact. It was that unrestricted right of appeal which he wished to give in cases decided in the inferior courts. It would
276
not only secure justice to the individual, but uniformity in practice. Under the existing law there was an appeal from the inferior courts on questions of law, but not of fact. But a judge of the inferior court had under this Bill to decide whether the interest charged was excessive, whether the amounts charged for expenses were excessive, whether the transaction was "harsh and unconscionable," and what sum was to be considered due in respect of principal and interest. Now all these were questions of fact, and having regard to that, an appeal on questions of law was altogether illusory. On every point the county court judge would give no reason in law for his decision. All he would say was that so and so was a question of fact, and he would decide accordingly. The House would observe that his Amendment was limited to giving an appeal from the inferior courts of England and Wales. There was a very good reason for that, because in Scotland and Ireland there was already an appeal from the inferior courts on questions of fact as well as of law. There was only one objection against the Amendment, and that was that it might lead to costs. His answer was two-fold. If a bad decision was given the fact that the appeal would cost something was no ground for refusing to give that appeal. The second was that the money-lender was exceedingly unlikely to appeal, except in cases where he was clearly in the right, as it would damage his reputation.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 15, after the word 'notice,' to insert the words, '(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Acts or Rules or Order in Council regulating the proceedings on appeal from inferior courts, any party aggrieved by the judgment, direction, decision, or order of the judge of any inferior court in England or Wales before whom proceedings are taken under this section may appeal from the same to a divisional court, subject to such conditions as may from time to time be provided by rules of the Supreme Court; provided that, unless by special leave of the said judge, there shall be no appeal unless the amount claimed by the money-lender in respect of which the proceedings are taken shall exceed the sum of twenty pounds; provided also, that if on the hearing of the appeal it shall appear to the divisional court that a new trial ought to be had, it shall be lawful for the said court, if it shall think fit, to order that the verdict and judgment shall be set aside, and that a new trial shall be had."—(Mr. Butcher.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid his hon. and learned friend had referred to one objection to the proposal—namely, the costs that might be run up if the right of appeal were given, and he was afraid that the longer purse would have the advantage. His hon. and learned friend had suggested that a money-lender unless he were in the right would not damage his reputation by appealing to the superior courts, but experience hardly bore that out. He was not at all certain that the Amendment would give the right of appeal as to the facts. The only appeal from county courts at present was in matters of law and equity, and he thought in a measure of that kind it was much better to adhere to the general system of procedure in England, according to which there was no appeal from county courts except on questions of law and equity.
MR. BECKETTsaid he would really appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision on the matter, and if they could see their way to accept the Amendment it would remove many of the objections taken to the Bill. The Attorney General had suggested that the right of appeal would be in favour of the money-lender, but as a matter of fact a moneylender was extremely unwilling to go into court. The Bill was really the outcome of prejudice, because the Committee which was appointed to inquire into money-lending inquired only into the abuses of the business, and refused to listen to the other side, and they came away with the impression that the whole system involved gigantic abuse. The Isaae Gordons were quite in a small minority, and the majority of the money-leaders were a thoroughly respectable, honest, and straightforward set of men, and deserved protection just as much as any other class. The amount of money involved in money-lending transactions ought to be considered by the Government. It was estimated at fifty millions annually; the business was most beneficial to the districts in which it was carried on, and it would be most unfortunate if it were hampered and restricted. The Government said they wished to stop harsh dealing. That was quite right, but at the same time they ought to be careful to refrain from doing anything that
278
would hamper legitimate business. The provisions of the Bill as they stood involved serious danger of that, but the money-lending fraternity would be quite willing if they even secured the protection afforded by his hon. friend's clause. The Bill created new offences and imposed serious penalties, and that was again another reason why the moneylender should be afforded protection. If by this Bill the business of money-lending wore made insecure, it would be driven underground, and would break out in all sorts of ways, with the result that borrowers would find themselves much worse off than they are at present. Again, if the matter were to be left to the county court judges, different decisions would be given in different parts of the country, and a money-lender would not know on what principles he could carry on his business. One judge might consider 5 per cent, unconscionable. Mr. Justice Mathew fixed the limit at 10 per cent, other judges at 25 per cent., and some even at 60 per cent. under certain circumstances. How could money-lending be carried on under such conditions? It was in order to introduce some regularity into the decisions of county court judges that his hon. friend desired to press his Amendment on the attention of the Government, and also in the interests of the business of the country, which was to a great extent dependent on money-lending. He trusted, therefore, the Government would accept the Amendment.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that the term "money-lender" in the Bill meant usurer, and usurers were a class against whom there was a very ancient feeling. If the hon. Gentleman read the Old Testament, he would find very strong observations regarding them. He agreed with the Attorney General's view of the Amendment. If a man got a decision against a usurer, then he would be told it would be of no benefit to him, because the usurer would appeal to a higher court. In fact, the usurer would make it part and parcel of his business, whenever a decision was given against him, to appeal, and then to endeavour to make some arrangement to get what he could out of the man with whom he had to deal. The only argument used in favour of the Amendment was that if the right of appeal were granted it would not be used because the money-lender would not

279
desire publicity; but he had already been into one court, and he was not a modest, bashful sort of man. He would remind the hon. Gentleman of the fact that a certain usurer named Shylock went into the supreme court of Venice and claimed his pound of flesh, and was not in the least ashamed of it.
*MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid the part he was taking in connection with the Bill was in the interest of the borrower. It was assumed by the hon. Member for Northampton that judgment would always be given against the money-lender and in favour of the borrower, and the hon. Member thought that the money-lender ought not to have the right of appeal. But, supposing a judge taking a strong view of the sanctity of a contract refused relief to the borrower, then he also would be refused the right of appeal. Surely both parties ought to be entitled to appeal except in cases under £20. If a case came before a puisne judge the defendant and the plaintiff would both have the right to appeal, if aggrieved by a decision, on the facts as well as the law, and the puisne judge was superior in legal knowledge and experience to a county court judge. To grant an appeal in one case and to refuse it in the other was making one law for the rich and another for the poor, and was not acting justly towards different classes of persons. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. It was only by an appeal to the High Court of Justice that definite lines could be laid down.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid they were enlarging very greatly the sphere of the jurisdiction of the county courts in matters on which the decisions of the courts of equity were not so numerous as to afford an adequate guide. It would, he believed, be an unfortunate thing if a body of law were developed in this way by the inferior courts without the possibility of any appeal. He thought that was an argument that ought to have some weight with the Government in considering the Amendment.
MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid ho would also join in the appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision, although he was afraid the appeal fell on somewhat deaf ears. One fact which was brought out very clearly in the Com-
280
mittee was that the right which the Amendment asked for for England was enjoyed in Ireland and Scotland, and that it worked satisfactorily in those countries. If the Bill passed in its present form this curious anomaly would be presented, that there would be an appeal from every inferior court in Scotland and Ireland, but no appeal from an inferior court in England. They were, for the first time, largely extending the powers of the county court judges, and in such a way as to depend largely on individual discretion. The only thing that was said against the appeal—apart from the fact that they were only dealing with moneylenders who were, as the hon. Member for Northampton said, a class outside the law, such was the unjust spirit and prejudice with which this measure had been conceived—was that it would involve cost. Bearing in mind that important statement of the hon. Member for Whitby, as to the prejudice with which money-lenders were regarded, and the difficulty of their obtaining justice, he should think that an appeal by a money-lender would be enormously risky. The borrower would have very little cause to fear, and he should say that if the decision was in favour of the borrower there would be very little chance of the money-lender coming to terms. If the county court judges went wrong—as judges even of the high courts sometimes did—it was right to give a borrower the same right of appeal from the inferior courts on questions of fact as on questions of law.
DR. TANNERsaid he had listened to the various arguments that had been raised. In the first place the hon. Gentleman who came from the city of Cork, but was Member for York, had absolutely got no knowledge of all this money-lending business——
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite irrelevant.
DR. TANNERsaid he would point out in connection with this Amendment that nearly all the Gentlemen who supported it, with one exception, were lawyers hanging on to the coat-tails of the moneylenders, and for that reason alone he would not support it.
Question put.
A division being challenged, Mr. SPEAKER named Mr. Tally and Mr. P. A. McHugh as Tellers for the Ayes.
MR. BUTCHERsaid he understood the understood the Tellers were to be Mr. Beckett and himself.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for North Leitrim gave that information
MR. BECKETTsaid the object of the Amendment which he desired to move was that the actual sum of money should be paid into court, and that if the borrower were unable to pay a lump sum he might by order of the court pay by instalments. The prejudice against money-lenders was so strong that they were considered in some cases not even entitled to their own. The Amendment
"In page 2, line 15, at end, to insert, 'Provided also, that no such account shall be taken unless or until the actual amount advanced by the money-lender to the person against whom the proceedings are taken, after deducting any
at the Table, which was a highly irregular thing to do without consulting the hon. Member in charge of the Amendment. Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Butcher and Mr. Beckett.
The House divided:—Ayes, 12; Noes, 91. (Division List No. 257.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Griffith, Ellis J.

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Emmott, Alfred

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Mr. Butcher and Mr. Beckett.

Gedge, Sydney

Moss, Samuel

NOES.

Asher, Alexander

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

O'Dowd, John

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Finch, George H.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Parkes, Ebenezer

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fisher, William Hayes

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Penn, John

Balcarres, Lord

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Purvis, Robert

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Billson, Alfred

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Brassey, Albert

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Round, James

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Caldwell, James

Hazell, Walter

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

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Horniman, Frederick John

Tanner, Charles Kearns

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Tully, Jasper

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Labouchere, Henry

Ure, Alexander

Channing, Francis Allston

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Macaleese, Daniel

Wylie, Alexander

Colville, John

Macdona, John Gumming

Wyndham, George

Crilly, Daniel

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Curzon, Viscount

M'Killop, James

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Dewar, Arthur

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Doogan, P. C.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Duckworth, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

sum or sums (if any) repaid to the money-lender, whether for principal, interest, bonus, or otherwise connected with the transaction, shall have been paid either to the moneylender or into court, but the court may order repayment of the actual amount advanced, or the balance for the time being owing by instalments, and adjourn the application for such amount until the repayment has been made.'"
MR. CALDWELL,on a point of order, said he desired to know whether an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division of Liverpool, which had been accepted, did not cover the Amendment now moved.
*MR. SPEAKER: The principal object of the hon. Member's Amendment has already been provided for in the previous Amendment, which has been accepted.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, after line 17, to add 'In the application of this Act to Scotland this section shall read as if the words "or otherwise any court of equity would give relief" were omitted therefrom.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. H. S. FOSTERasked for an explanation of the Amendment.
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said that the section as it originally stood would not present any practical difficulty in its application to Scotland, because the words "harsh and unconscionable" were ordinary words in the English language, and the Scotch courts would construe them accordingly, and would apply them by analogy to the Scotch law. But if the words "any court of equity would give relief" were included it would create a difficulty, because in every such case a couple of English counsel would have to be examined in order to know whether a court of equity would or would not give relief.
MR. SYDNEY GEDGEasked if the hon. Member for South Leeds was aware that the Lord Advocate intended to move the Amendment, because it appeared to him that the words had been assented to by the Government.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid he did not know whether the hon. Member for South Leeds was aware that he would move the Amendment, but the hon. Member ought to be in his place.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to carry out what he believed to be one of the purposes of the Bill—namely, to ensure that the borrower should be able to ascertain from a register, if necessary, who the individual was with whom he was dealing. Now, however, that limited companies were to be allowed to carry on the business of money-lending, it appeared to him that the Amendment would not carry out the object for which it was intended, and he would therefore not move it.
MR. H. S. FOSTERmoved that the debate be now adjourned. They had arrived at two o'clock in the morning. In Committee the last part of the Bill was rushed through without discussion on the express condition that there would be full opportunity for discussion on the Report stage. He himself, on that request, did not move a great many Amendments which he intended to move. It must be perfectly clear to the House that they were not free at that time of the morning. They felt that they were keeping hon. Members out of bed. [HON. MEMBERS: No.] He was quite prepared to go on till twelve o'clock that day, but he wished to feel that he was relieved of the odium of keeping Members out of bed. They were looked upon with a species of personal resentment by Members on the Front Bench because they dared to speak to their Amendments.
Motion made, and Question put, "That further proceedings on consideration, as amended, be adjourned."—(Mr. H. S. Foster.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 19; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 258.)

AYES.

Billson, Alfred

Griffith, Ellis J.

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Caldwell, James

Horniman, Frederick John

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

Colville, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Dewar, Arthur

Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Duckworth, James

Moss, Samuel

Mr. Harry Foster and Mr. David Thomas.

Gedge, Sydney

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Asher, Alexander

Balcarres, Lord

Beckett, Ernest William

Ashmead-Bartlebt, Sir Ellis

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Penn, John

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Purvis, Robert

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Healey, Maurice (Cork)

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Crilly, Daniel

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Curzon, Viscount

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tally, Jasper

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Macdona, John Cumming

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Doogan, P. C.

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Killop, James

Wylie, Alexander

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wyndham, George

Finch, George H.

Marray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Fisher, William Hayes

Nicol, Donal Ninian

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

O'Dowd, John

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Austruther.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Sir William Walrond)—put, and agreed to.

MR. H. S. FOSTERin moving to strike out Sub-section (1) (a) of Clause 2, said that the sub-section, as drawn, limited prosecutions. The clause required the money-lender to do a varied number of things, and made it a penal offence if he failed to comply with these things. He was required to register himself as a money-lender, and to carry on his business in his registered name and in no other, and at his registered address and no other. Then he had to furnish the borrower with certain documents, and the clause went on to say that if he failed to do any of those things he would be liable to prosecution and punishment. The object of his Amendment was to extend the same protection as was provided in regard to Sub-section (1) (a) to the other subsections—namely, that before prosecution was instituted the permission of the Law Officers of the Crown should be obtained. That permission would always be obtained if a prima facie case were shown.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 8, to leave out the words 'Sub-section (1) (a) of.'"—(Mr. H. S. Foster.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the permission of the Law Officers of the Crown was only necessary where there was danger of special abuse of the power of prosecution. There was nothing difficult in regard to prosecutions under Subsections (b), (c), and (d); but in case of Subsection (a), where consent was required, it was eminently necessary that there should be some check on the institution of proceedings. It was very difficult to obtain information as to who was a money-
286
lender, and very vexatious proceedings might be instituted from improper motives against a person on the suggestion that he was a money-lender, when in point of fact he really did not come within the terms and spirit of the Act; and it was thought necessary to restrict the power in that case.
Other Amendments made.
MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid the object of the Amendment he now moved was to secure that a Return should be made to the House, as there seemed to be some doubt whether without the Amendment the ordinary practice would not prevail. It appeared to him to be the proper thing that a Return should be laid on the Table, of the House, and that the House should exercise some control over the action of the Commissioners.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 19, after the word 'therefor,' to insert the words 'and such regulations-shall be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament.'"—(Mr. M. S. Foster.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped the House would not accept the Amendment. The Return to which this clause applied only proposed to regulate details, with reference to registration.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid the next Amendment which he desired to move was one of substance and importance. The clause created fresh offences, in the wording of it, even if the words "or

287
promise" were omitted, and appeared to him to lend itself to very serious abuse. If a man made a misleading promise or a deceptive statement that would be clearly an offence, and it was quite right that it should be punished, or if a man concealed material facts it was right he should be punished, also, but the words in the clause were, in his opinion, very dangerous and should be properly defined. The clause opened the door to very great abuse, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. There was always danger in indefinite words of that kind.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 28, to leave out the words 'or promise.'"—(Mr. H. S. Foster.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or promise' stand part of the Bill."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that his hon. friend would observe that the words were governed by the following words, "fraudulently induces or attempts to induce." A mere promise did not constitute a crime. He was encouraged to retain the words by the fact that the hon. Member himself had included them in a subsequent Amendment of his own.
MR. MAURICE HEALYsaid that in Ireland a prisoner could not be examined in his own defence. It appeared to him that in such cases as would arise under this Bill the defendant should be examined in his own defence, otherwise the lender would be at the mercy of the borrower.
SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that by permission of the House he might say the matter mentioned by the hon. Member was one of very great weight. He did not know whether there would be any objection on the part of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland to the insertion of words enabling a defendant in such cases to give evidence on his own behalf.
MR. MOSSsaid that everyone knew that in ninety-nine cases of money-lending out of every hundred the whole transaction was induced by promises, and the section seemed to him to be for the purpose of protecting borrowers from fraudulent promises.
MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid the object of his next Amendment was to apply the
288
same consequences to fraudulent borrowers that were applied to fraudulent money-lenders. The Attorney General had stated that he had included the words "or promise" in the Amendment, but he did so because if he omitted them the right hon. Gentleman would state that he was not applying the same law to the borrower as to the money-lender. He therefore followed the wording of the clause, but if the words "or promise" had been omitted in the clause lie would have omitted thorn from the Amendment. The sympathy of the House was being directed by the Government entirely in the direction of borrowers, but in fairness it should be said that there were a large number of fraudulent borrowers, and if the money-lender had frequently to exact what for a bank would be a very heavy rate of interest, it was because ho reckoned on a large percentage of loss from fraudulent borrowers. It seemed to him that the same law ought to be applied to the fraudulent borrower as to the fraudulent money-lender.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 31, after the word 'borrowed,' to insert the words 'or if any person by any false, misleading, or deceptive statement, representation, or promise, or by any dishonest concealment of facts induces, or attempts to induce, any money-lender, or any manager, agent, or clerk of the money-lender, to lend money to him or to any other person.'"—(Mr. H. S. Foster.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYhoped the House would not accept the Amendment. The Bill was introduced not for the purpose of casting any aspersions on money lenders generally, many of whom were most respectable men, but for the purpose of checking abuses which undoubtedly existed in connection with that business, and the need of a measure in the interests of borrowers as against money-lenders was one which had forced itself on the moral sense of the community. He would also call attention to the fact that this Amendment might be used by an unscrupulous moneylender with crushing effect.
MR. MOSShoped that the hon. Member would press his Amendment to a division. He did not see why the moneylender, who was conducting a bona fide business which served a very useful purpose, should be placed at a great disad-

289
vantage compared with the money-borrower. If the lender was induced by fraud to lend money, the borrower should be placed under the same penalty as the money-lender who induced by fraud the borrower to borrow money. He did not see that the observations of the Attorney General were at all logical in connection with this clause.
MR. BECKETTsaid that there was a recent case in which a borrower went to a money-lender and borrowed money, telling him that he only owed £300, whereas shortly after it came out that he owed £6,000. He was prosecuted for obtaining money on false pretences and acquitted, whereupon the borrower proceeded against the money-lender for false prosecution, and obtained a verdict for a considerable sum as damages. If they looked at the bankruptcy Returns it would be seen that borrowers were not spoken of in high terms. When people were foolish and dishonest enough to borrow from usurers they were utterly regardless of how they obtained loans, even by false representations.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. BECKETTsaid the object of the Amendment he now proposed was to give some protection to the lender. Unless some such precaution as was pointed out in the Amendment were taken, the money-lender would be placed entirely in the power of the borrower, and would also be liable to be blackmailed by a dishonest clerk.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 34, alter the word 'both,' to insert the words, 'Provided that a court shall not convict under this section unless the statement, representation, promise, or concealment be contained in some written document, or he proved by evidence other than that of the borrower, intending borrower, or sureties (if any).'"—(Mr. Beckett.)
Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYhoped the House would not adopt this Amendment. It would introduce a hard-and-fast arbitrary rule of evidence that would not do justice. There might be no writing at all in the case; and if there were two or three persons of unimpeachable integrity to testify, surely that would be evidence.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. H. S. FOSTER MR. H. S. FOSTER moved to leave out Clause 5. The clause seemed to him to be exceedingly objectionable in form, because it went against the ordinary maxim of the law that a man was innocent until he was found guilty. The clause proceeded on the assumption that the man was guilty until he was proved to be innocent. If the clause passed, the money-lender would have to prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the person with whom he was dealing was of age; but that might be an exceedingly difficult thing to do. Everyone would sympathise with the object of this particular clause, which was to prevent the communication of offers of money to minors, who were particularly liable to temptation, and university students. Any right-minded person must have sympathy with any fair provision having that object; but that ought not to induce them to agree to a clause of this kind.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out Clause 5."—(Mr. H. S. Foster.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR ROBERT FINLAYhoped the House would allow the clause to stand as it was. No doubt in particular cases it might be impossible to give actual proof that the person sending out the circular believed the youth was of age; but whether the youth was of age or not, the circular was intended to lead to the belief that he had proof of the fact that he was of age.
Other Amendments made.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1898–9.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley) in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed—"That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1899, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.—

(a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the esti-

291
mate of such expenditure by a total sum of £637,516 8s. 3d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £825,980 6s. 6d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £188,463 18s. 3d.

(b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £6,853 13s. 5d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £65,914 3s. 3d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £59,060 9s. 10d.

SCHEDULE.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1898–99. Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

…

Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

…

52,038

12

0

2,039

1

1

2

…

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

95,269

14

4

…

…

3,698

12

11

3

…

Medical Establishments and Services

…

551

11

11

…

636

9

6

4

…

Martial Law

719

3

2

…

…

40

8

4

5

…

Educational Services

…

1,422

8

6

…

161

11

9

6

…

Scientific Services

2,897

18

0

…

…

5,423

0

7

7

…

Royal Naval Reserves

…

13,683

11

1

…

188

13

1

8

…

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:

Sec. 1

…

Personnel

191,318

6

8

…

12

7

Sec. 2

…

Materiel

192,715

5

7

…

…

43,268

14

0

Sec. 3

…

Contract Work

…

749,758

9

6

2,053

13

10

9

…

Naval Armaments

…

8,525

13

6

73

15

11

10

…

Works Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad

91,241

9

9

…

…

10,752

7

3

(c.) That the resulting differences, between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

825,325

12

7

Total Deficits

577,801

4

6

Net Surplus

£247,524

8

1

That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the not charge on Exchequer Grants, for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in. respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
1. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1898–99. Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual is compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual is compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

11

…

Miscellaneous Effective Services

32,862

19

2

…

…

1,553

16

2

12

…

Admiralty Office

500

5

8

…

…

1

17

9

13

…

Half-pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

18,169

4

5

…

954

1

6

14

…

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

4,491

9

11

…

1,246

8

6

15

…

Civil Pensions and Gratuities

4,633

1

5

…

…

188

11

11

16

…

Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters

42

16

0

…

486

0

0

Amount written off as irrecoverable

2,654

14

2

637,516

8

3

825,980

6

6

6,853

13

5

65,914

3

3

Net Surplus,

£l88,463

18

3

Net Surplus,

£59,060

9

10

Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer

£247,524

8

1

That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1899 (as corrected by the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts of the present session), and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—

(a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £268,594 1s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 1 of Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £100,015 14s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services exceeded the gross estimated expenditure by the not sum of £167,978 7s. 7d.

(b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £48,828 14s. 6d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the
294
receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £226,126 0s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £177,297 6s. 3d.

(c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

278,806

12

5

Total Deficits

269,487

13

9

Net Surplus

£9,318

18

8

That by a Vote of Parliament during the present session (House of Commons Paper, No. 90, of 1900) a further sum of £100 has been granted for the expenditure of the year 1898–9, and the appropriation of additional receipts in aid of such expenditure has been sanctioned to the amount of £168,070 2s. 6d.
That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover

SCHEDULE.

No. of Vote.

Army Services, 1898–99. Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, etc., of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

29,358

10

11

…

…

100,529

17

8

2

Medical Establishments

35,054

5

1

…

15

13

11

3

Militia: Pay, Extra Pay, Bounty, etc

…

6,354

14

6

319

5

8

4

Yeomanry Cavalry: Pay and Allowances

1,489

17

9

…

…

1

8

10

5

Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

…

1,840

2

1

…

743

18

2

6

Transport and Remounts

119,933

3

0

…

…

9,950

19

8

7

Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

…

45,524

2

1

…

22,810

6

0

8

Clothing Establishments and Services

74,108

15

0

…

...

8,251

0

11

9

Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

…

17,716

17

6

…

58,131

3

11

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Staff for Engineer Services

1,872

14

3

…

48,384

14

2

11

Establishments for Military Education

…

2,332

10

4

…

2,083

8

1

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

404

5

5

…

…

53

16

6

13

War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

…

1,815

12

7

…

347

4

11

14

Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

…

20,619

8

5

…

19,327

0

0

15

Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

…

4,412

6

8

…

3,915

16

1

16

Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

6,132

0

7

…

69

0

9

Balances irrecoverable

240

9

9

268,594

1

9

100,615

14

2

48,828

14

6

226,128

0

9

Add Excess Vote

…

100

0

0

100,715

14

2

Net Deficit, £167,878

7

7

Net Surplus, £177,297

6

3

Net Surplus £9,418 18 8

the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUELsaid this matter was very complicated, and as hon. Members had been in attendance for twelve hours, progress should be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Jonathan, Samuel.)
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,)said the matter appeared every year, and was merely formal.
DR. TANNERsaid that when ho was a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, the matter was one which always required investigation. They had been assisting the Government to pass the Money-lending Bill, and the Government now brought in financial business which could wait until to-morrow. The Government were trying at that late hour to rush through a large sum of money.
MR. HANBURYsaid the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. The Government were asking for no money. They were simply asking the sanction of the House for what had been already done by the Treasury in transferring the surplus of one Vote to make up the deficiency of the other.
DR. TANNERsaid that the matter had always been a casus belli on the Public Accounts Committee. He appealed to the Government to let it stand over until to-morrow.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Mr. BRYN ROBERTS, Carnarvonshire, Eifion). House counted, and forty Members being found present,
MR. TULLYsaid he hoped the matter would not be persisted in. They had been supporting the Govrnment against their own supporters, and ho thought it unfair that they, who conscientiously objected to money being voted for the war, should now be asked to consider financial
298
proposals. He found that one of the items was for the Yeomanry. That word had an evil sound in Ireland.
THE CHAIRMAN: I beg to call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that no money is to be voted for any service.
*MR. JONATHAN SAMUELsaid the Committee should have more information than had yet been given. He found in the resolution that last year there was an unexpended surplus of £325,000, and they ought to know the reason why. That sum was now being transferred to some other item. Then the excess of the gross expenditure was £637,000. These sums were very large, and he thought they should have an explanation from the Government regarding them. That was the practice in municipal life. Corporations never thought of asking for more money than what they required for the given year; and it seemed to him that that was the practice on which they ought to prepare the Estimates year after year. Large sums of money were asked for, some were unexpended, and at the: end of the year they were spent in other directions. If these large sums were not required it would be much better to use thorn in the reduction of taxation.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that there was no Vote before the Committee.
*MR. JONATHAN SAMUELsaid it was not a vote, but a resolution, and he should like to hear from the hon. Member for Mid Lanark whether he was partly responsible for taking this resolution at that time of the morning, and whether this was one of his arrangements. When they had been increasing taxation——
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Gentleman that that had nothing to do with the business before the Committee.
*MR. JONATHAN SAMUELsaid that this resolution dealt with last year's, accounts, and he would be quite in order in discussing whether fresh taxes put in it were necessary. Ho asked for a full

299
explanation why these large amounts were unexpended in one direction and large amounts over the Estimates were expended in another direction. It showed very lax work on the part of those responsible for the Estimates. And, therefore, he begged leave, seeing that it was time the House adjourned, to move to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
MR. A. J. BALFOURhoped that the motion would not be pressed. The hon. Gentleman was speaking under a misapprehension. This was a purely formal resolution that had to be passed every year to comply with the statute; and it had nothing to do with the finances of the year. It would not be in order upon the resolution to discuss taxation or expenditure. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that it was a formal matter, and the reason they were pressing it on the House that evening was that it was absolutely necessary in order to comply with the requirements of the Appropriation Bill. The date of the holidays, besides, depended upon it.
MR. CRILLYsaid that they on the Irish benches had dealt with the right hon. Gentleman very generously that night, and were perfectly willing to give way to him now. He wanted, however, to point out to the First Lord of the Treasury that he did not think it fair that a paid member of the Government should be put into the Chair to preside over their deliberations at that time of the morning. Mr. Arthur O'Connor should have taken the Chair.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It is quite out of order to address the Chairman in terms like these.
MR. CRILLYassured Mr. Jesse Collings that he had no disposition whatever to say anything offensive. He, however, wanted to enter his strongest and most vigorous protest against the presiding officer being a paid member of the Government, when a small minority were fighting against them to the end of a night like that.
MR. CALDWELLthought the Government had themselves a good deal to blame for the position in which they found themselves. If it was important that this Committee stage should really have been taken that night, why did they not put the resolution down in an earlier part of the programme? It was no answer to say that it was merely formal. He was bound to say that it would have passed more readily at nine o'clock last night than at three o'clock that morning. He had no objection to the motion, but if the Government kept on the House till three in the morning and began fresh business they might expect opposition. The Government had got their Money-lending Bill, and why should they force matters? If the First Lord of the Treasury would consent to report progress he would find that the matter would go through in the ordinary course.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the Government had done their best to meet the views of the House that night, and especially the views of the Irish Members; and he must say that ho did not think they had been well treated when objection I was taken to their asking the House to take a measure which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged was a merely formal matter. He agreed to report progress upon the understanding that the resolution should be taken without discussion at the next sitting.
DR. TANNERsaid that other Members would be there on the morrow with whose views they were not conversant; and were they to be responsible for them in regard to this matter?
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

  M. Bath,

  E. Camperdown (chairman),

  L. Colchester,

  L. Fermanagh (E. Erne),

  L. Harlech;

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.

DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  CLONTARF URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 12th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  SAINT DAVID'S RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
DEVONPORT CORPORATION BILL.
  HASTINGS CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEWRY, READY, AND TYNAN LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
  MID-KENT WATER BILL.

    BRAY AND ENNISKERRY RAILWAY BILL.
    CHRISTCHURCH AND BOURNEMOUTH TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

    METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
    The Queen's consent signified; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made. Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
    COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made. Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE, COMMERCIAL GAS, AND SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES BILL,
    NOW METROPOLIS GAS (PREPAYMENT METER) BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made. Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
    TOTTENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL.
    Moved, That Standing Order No. 144 be considered and dispensed with in respect of the said Bill; agreed to. Bill read 3a with the Amendments; further Amendments made. Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  COSTA RICA RAILWAY COMPANY, LIMITED, BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
BLACKPOOL, ST. ANNE'S, AND LYTHAM TRAMWAYS BILL.
  EAST LONDON WATEK BILL.

    ILFRACOMBE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL.
    LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

BUENOS AYRES AND ROSARIO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  IPSWICH CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]

    ROTHERHITHE AND RATCLIFF TUNNEL BILL [H.L.]
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
    WITHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.

HEMEL HEMPSTEAD CORPORATION (WATER) BILL [H.L.]
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  LONDON (ST. MARYLEBONE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
PAISLEY WATERWORKS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  EDINBURGH (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) IMPROVEMENT SCHEME PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.

  AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I beg to move the alterations in the Standing Orders which appear on your Lordships' Paper, and which are usually made at this time of the year. I do not think I need detain the House at any length in describing them, but I will mention shortly what they are. The first alteration extends the Examiners' Orders as to advertisements and notices to the user of land as well as to the acquisition of land. This is really not an absolute alteration. It makes clear what we thought was clear, but which does not seem to have been so. The next alteration relates to maps required when large electric manufacturing companies are started. The next is a technical alteration, and at the end there are a series of Orders which are designed to bring into operation the Scotch Private Bill Procedure Act, which comes into force on 1st January next. I do not think there is any other point to which I need call your Lordships' attention, but I shall be willing to answer any questions that may be addressed to me on the subject.
  The alterations in the Standing Orders were agreed to; Standing Orders amended accordingly, and to be printed as amended. (No. 213.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Twenty-ninth Annual Report of Local Government Board, 1899–1900.
  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Twenty-second Report of the General Prisons Board, Ireland, 1899–1900.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Report of the Commissioners, for the period from 1st April, 1899, to 31st March, 1900.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Thirty-sixth Annual Report of the Registrar General, for the year 1899.

  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND).
  Forty-fourth Detailed Annual Report of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland (Abstracts of 1898).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1890.
  Rules made by the Board of Trade in pursuance of Section 5 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882.

  NAVY (PRIZE MONEY).
  Account showing the receipt and expenditure of naval prize, bounty, salvage, and other moneys between the 1st April, 1899 and the 31st March, 1900.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE ASSASSINATION OF THE KING OF ITALY.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have to ask the House to consider a matter which I regret to say is not strange to your deliberations, but which can never be mentioned here without arousing feelings of sympathy and grief. I have to propose an Address to Her Majesty with respect to the lamentable murder of the late King of Italy. As I have said, this is not the first time during the past half-century that the murder of heads of States, accused of no crime, and guilty of no special fault in the eyes of their subjects, has yet been carried out by the irresponsible decrees of secret societies, and under the ruthless execution of the fanatics who are chosen to accomplish such crimes. These murders have not been confined to any one political opinion. They are dictated by no thought for the peculiar system which the victim of the outrage might represent. In the last half-century we have seen the murder of three Presidents of Republics, and even to-day we can only say that we have seen the murder of two monarchs. It is a fearful roll, not only because of our sympathy for the people over whom these men, honoured, valued,
146
and beloved, ruled, but also on account of the dark depths of human villainy and crime which it opens to our view beneath the smiling surface of society, and with which it threatens the best interests of society in the early future. It was certainly no fault of the King of Italy, no defect attached to his character, which produced the fearful calamity which we are lamenting to-day. He was a thorough Italian—the son of the man by whom Italy was founded, the inheritor of all his popularity and of many of his greatest qualities. He spared himself nothing for the benefit of his country, and watched over the slowly-growing fortunes and strength of Italy with a care that never flagged, and with a judgment that seldom failed. He showed in everything the deepest sympathy for his people. He sustained that military feeling which undoubtedly at the bottom they possess. He was deeply beloved for his own personal qualities, and also for the qualities of his Queen, to whose virtues and whose popularity and whose deep grief we all render a unanimous homage of sympathy and regret. He showed what his character was at a time which brings the force of men's strength to light—at the time of the great cholera epidemic in Naples. There are many men brave on the field of battle who would blench at the danger of contagion from the fell disease which he faced without hesitation and without stint; and nothing endeared him more to his people. He was a man unstained by any offence towards his countrymen or vice to the society to which he belonged—a man high in the esteem, belief, and homage of all his contemporaries—a man who loved his people above all things, and spent his life for them—a man whose family had given themselves to the fostering of the Italian nationality with an ardour and devoted continuance that led to constant success—it was that man that the secret societies selected and the ruthless executioner struck at in obedience to their decree. My Lords, we cannot consider these political actions, because, as I have said, all forms of political life have been equally struck at by them. We cannot consider them the result of private revenge, for there is no trace of any motive of private revenge to actuate those by whom these deeds have been done. It is nothing but that morbid thirst for notoriety which is the bane and the curse of our modern civili-

147
sation; it is that which again and again has led men to the commission of the most awful crimes, and which threatens the very existence of society if it cannot be arrested. My Lords, I shall not on this occasion diverge for a moment to speak of the remedies—if remedies there are—by which such a state of things can be met. I have never hesitated to express my own belief that, with respect to these crimes, modern society errs on the side of leniency.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But be that as it may, we have now but one duty, and that is to mark and record the sense which we have constantly felt for the Sovereign who has done so much to nurture the early growth of the kingdom of Italy, to express our deep sympathy for the objects which he had in view, and our profound regret that the arm on which Italy leant so strongly has, by the assassin, been struck down. We have, my Lords, to express our sympathy —it is barren, but it is the expression of a feeling which exists deeply in this whole community—and I have no hesitation in submitting to your Lordships the motion standing in my name.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to convey to Her Majesty the expression of the indignation and deep concern with which this House has learned the assassination of Her Majesty's ally His Majesty the King of Italy, and to pray Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to express to His Majesty the present King, on the part of this House, their abhorrence of the crime, and their sympathy with the Royal Family of Italy and with the Government and people of that country."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I rise to second the motion made by the noble Marquess. I have very little to add to what he said, for he with his usual ability and eloquence has expressed, I believe, the sentiments felt by us all. But in the first place I will say a word upon that dismal subject to which the noble Marquess referred at the commencement of his speech—the existence in our highly civilised society of a band of
148
men, of murderers, of a more atrocious kind, perhaps, even than we knew of in ages when civilisation was not so much advanced. I agree with the noble Marquess that it is a subject for deep reflection that there should exist, not only in Monarchies but also in Republics—indeed in all civilised society, I fear—men who are perfectly ready, for motives which it is almost impossible to understand, to commit crime of the most extreme atrocity —I say extreme atrocity. There have been times when men have assassinated their enemies, have from political motives assassinated men who they believed were doing some serious injury to their country, have assassinated men who were held up to execration as tyrants. Such assassins, at all events, had motives which one can understand, however unjustifiable those acts were; but here is a case where it is not the oppressor that is singled out. It is not a man who might have created enemies by unjust or too severe government, but the man who of all others has been an honour to the class to which he belonged—the highest class in Europe—and who has been an honour to them and a benefactor to the people over whom he has ruled. I need only remind your Lordships of the assassination of the Emperor Alexander of Russia. I was two years in Russia, and I had the honour of not infrequently seeing and speaking with him, and I will say that a more humane and more benevolent man,, a man who had more at heart the interests of the people over whom he ruled, never existed, and yet that man was singled out by the assassin. And now we have a man who, by universal assent, has invariably endeavoured to sustain the best interests of his country, and has invariably endeavoured to promote the liberties of his country, and has shown himself personally to have the deepest sympathy with all classes in a manner which one would suppose would have touched the hardest heart. Yet that is the man singled out for assassination. But perhaps more horrible and more atrocious— if anything could be more atrocious—was the dreadful assassination of the Empress of Austria, a lady who was, I suppose, one of the kindest, most amiable, and most beneficent that ever occupied a throne. With regard to the King of Italy, the noble Marquess has said everything on that subject, and I need add nothing to what has been said by him, but I will only make

149
mention of this, that I believe the deep sympathy which is felt for the Royal Family and the people of Italy in every civilised country is perhaps even more felt in this country, owing to the extremely cordial and friendly relations which we have enjoyed with the Italians and their Government for many years. There is no country where, I think, we have gained more of the esteem of the population, because it is known that our sympathies have been strong with their endeavour to establish a free constitutional government. We have felt the difficulties which they have had to sustain, and that being the case I think we offer our sympathy with them with almost more emphasis than could be offered by people between whom there is not such a strong bond. As regards the future, I myself hold entirely to the opinion of the noble Marquess that there has been a tendency to treat these crimes too lightly and too leniently. I am not myself, I hope, one of those who have the least wish for indiscriminate revenge, but I do say that society is perfectly justified— nay, bound—to exercise a salutary control over and salutary punishment against those whom I do not hesitate to characterise as enemies of the human race. I most cordially second the Address.
On Question, agreed to, nemine dissentiente.
Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—YEOMANRY PRISONERS.
*THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War if he has any information as to the condition of the Yeomanry prisoners at Nooitgedacht, especially with reference to the supplies of food and clothing, and their access to medical advice. A great number of these prisoners belong to Irish corps, and, although they are connected with Belfast and Dublin companies, many of them are recruited from remote parts of the country where it is exceedingly difficult to obtain news. If the noble Marquess can give any reassuring information on the subject I am sure it will be deeply appreciated by the relatives of the prisoners.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I need not assure my noble friend that we have watched with much concern over the fate of these unfortunate prisoners. The latest information which we have as to their condition is to the effect that at the time the information was supplied the food was insufficient— only 1lb. of meat per man per week being meted out to them—and that for eleven days the men had neither meat nor salt. I am very glad to say that, in spite of that, our informant reported that the general state of health of the prisoners was good, only about seventy out of 1,600 men being in hospital. There were no very serious cases, and only two deaths had been recorded. As the Boer authorities had made known their intention of giving us no information about the British prisoners except through Lord Roberts at his request, a telegram was sent on the 24th inst. to Lord Roberts, inquiring whether he could bring any pressure to bear on the Boer authorities with a view to improving the treatment of the prisoners. No reply has yet been received to this telegram. A further message has to-day been sent to Lord Roberts desiring him to use every effort to arrange with the Boer authorities for the transmission of doctors, medicines, and clothing to the prisoners in their hands. That is, I am afraid, all I am able to say, but my noble friend may rely upon our watching the case with the attention and solicitude it deserves.

POST OFFICE—HOLIDAYS.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Postmaster General if the Order dated 1st November, 1898, with reference to the holidays of certain assistants in the Post Office, will have the effect of reducing such holidays from one month to twenty-one weekdays in the case of those who are in receipt of annual salaries of less than £300; also, if the customary method of determining the length of holidays regulated by grade and duties has been departed from, and one based upon salary alone adopted, with the effect of rendering the holidays for woman less than those for men performing similar work. I am quite aware that in such a vast administration as that of the Post Office there must be many ramifications which

151
make the adjustment of matters of this kind a difficult and often complicated affair. But at the same time it is certain that any steps taken to make the position of Post Office employees favourable and convenient, so far as is consistent with due regularity and the interests of the public service, will be regarded with favour by the people of this country. As to the particular cases referred to in the question, it should be borne in mind that the female officials concerned do not rise to the position of assistant supervisors until they have gone through a vast amount of previous service, extending, I think, usually to about twenty-five years, and one of the chief attractions looked forward to in the higher position has been that of the slight increase of holiday. One can imagine, therefore, the disappointment caused by learning that the desired and reasonable boon of a month's holiday was to be reduced to twenty-one weekdays, which is, in fact, about the same as what is alloted to junior officials of only five or six years service. But the main point which I would Venture to urge is that it should be more and more recognised that the provision of a holiday is a matter of necessity to health and good work, and that therefore a liberal scale might well be adopted in the case of the Post Office, where the work seems to be always increasing, though, strangely enough, the scale in that Department is, if I am rightly informed, as yet less than in some other branches of the public service.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY): My Lords, it must be remembered that the Department over which I preside has the largest number of employees, I suppose, of any department or firm in the world, and consequently it is necessary, however one might desire to meet their comfort and convenience, to adhere to the rules laid down by my predecessor in office. The question of holidays was gone into very closely in June, 1898, and the Order then made was confirmed in November, 1898, which was that certain female supervising officers with salaries below £300 should have after that date twenty-one days holidays. That was only in regard to the new officers. It was decided at the same time that those officers who were in the enjoyment of one month's leave should continue to have
152
that privilege. The annual allowance of leave is fixed with reference to the salaries, which, I think, is a just rule, as the salaries are fixed with reference to the duties of the officers. In connection with this matter, I may add that we cannot relax any of the regulations with respect to London without also, doing it in regard to officers performing similar duties in the provinces, and that would be all the more difficult as this is a very busy season of the year. In one particular the claim of the female officers does not compare with that of the male officers, because the former have no night duty. These are matters which were carefully considered by my predecessor when he made up his mind with regard to the question of leave. I sympathise with the wish of the noble Earl that the assistants in the Post Office should obtain longer holidays, but I do not think that in the interests of the public, after consideration has been given to the question by my predecessor, I should he justified in making any alteration in the decision arrived.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the, Amendment agreed to.
CRUELTY TO WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY BILL.
Returned from the Commons with, the Amendments agreed to.
EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the whole House to be received on Thursday next.
LUNACY BOARD (SCOTLAND) (SALARIES, ETC.) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee with an Amendment. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee-of the Whole House, and by the Standing Committee, to be received on Thursday next, and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being

153
dispensed with. Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 212.)

TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order). The Amendments proposed by the Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
OIL IN TOBACCO BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed and returned to the Commons.
CUSTOMS DUTIES (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

DELIVERY TO PEEKS OF NOTICES AND PAPERS.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Before the House adjourns, I should like to say that the reason why I and other Members did not attend the meeting of the Standing Committee this afternoon was that no notice whatever had been sent out that the Standing Committee was to meet. It is exceedingly inconvenient that such notices should not be sent out, or should not arrive in time, and I venture to call attention to the matter in the hope that careful inquiry will be made to ascertain how this neglect has happened. I must also add that the delivery of Papers has become, if possible, more unpunctual and unsatisfactory than formerly.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
The Earl WALDEGRAVE chosen Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.

COMPANIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on
154
Thursday next; and Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with. —(The Lord Chancellor.)(No. 214.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next.—(The Lord President [D. Devonshire.]) (No. 215.)
NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed. (No. 216.)
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL (No. 217.)

  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 218.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Ten of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.