Sitting of 18 June 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

  Barnsley Corporation Bill [Lords].

  Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill [Lords].

  Glyncorrwg Urban District Council Gas Bill [Lords].

  Gwyrfai Rural District Council Water. Bill [Lords].

  Margate Corporation Bill [Lords].

  Mersey Railway Bill [Lords].

  Motherwell and Bellshill Railway Bill [Lords].

  267

  North Eastern Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords].

  Rotherham Corporation Bill [Lords].

  South Staffordshire Tramways Bill [Lords].

  Westgate and Birchington Water Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Roe's Patent Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.:—
  North Eastern Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Brighton and Preston United District, &c.) Bill [Lords].

  268

  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes) (No. 2) Bill.

  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill.

  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—

  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.

  Perth and Paisley Gas Provisional Orders Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  FARNWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE, COMMERCIA GAS, AND SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  GREAT BERKHAMPSTEAD WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  HUDDERSEIELD CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  JARROW AND HEBBURN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
LANCASHIRE INEBRIATES ACTS BOARD BILL [Lords].
  MENSTONE WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
MID-KENT WATER BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
NEWEY, KEADY, AND TYNAN LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
NEWTOWN AND LLANLLWCHAIARN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords].
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
PORTLAND URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
  WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
BIRMINGHAM (KING EDWARD THE SIXTH) SCHOOLS BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered; amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
BLACKPOOL, ST. ANNE'S, AND LYTHAM TRAMWAYS BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
COWES PIER MILL [Lords].
As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
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.

KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
As amended, considered; Amendments made.
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.

LONDON AND SAINT KATHERINE DOCKS AND EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANIES BILL.
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.

MOTHERWELL WATER BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
    PIER AND HARBOUR, PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.

GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL [ANNUITIES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the

271
creation of Annuities to be charged on and payable out of the Revenues of India in lieu of the sum of money amounting to £34,859,217 17s. 6d. agreed upon for the purchase by the Secretary of State in Council of India of the undertaking of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company, and the payment of any costs and expenses incurred by the said Secretary of State under any Act of the present Session for vesting the said undertaking in the said Secretary of State in Council of India; and also any costs, charges, and expenses of obtaining and passing the said Act not provided by the surplus profits arising from the said undertaking for the half year ending the 30th day of June, 1900."—(MR. Caldwell.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like an explanation of this. It is the first time we have seen or heard anything of it, and we have no explanation of it. A doubt arises in my mind whether there is not a shifting of liability with regard to this matter on to the funds of the United Kingdom.
No one rising to reply,
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid: I move to report Progress. It is impossible to proceed without some explanation.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again "— (Mr. Gibson Bowles)—put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Amendment to—Otley Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords]: Amendments to—Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords], Higham Ferrers Water Bill [Lords], Cleethorpes Gas Bill [Lords], Dundee Harbour Bill [Lords], London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords], without amendment.
OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills (Section B), with Amendments; [Costs awarded]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  BRITISH MUSEUM BILL.
  Petition from Worcestershire, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition of Doulath Khan, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against, from Winning Park; Ardrossan; Haddington; Stirling; Renfrew; Pollokshaws; Bathgate; Crail; Anstruther Easter; Kilrenny; Dalkeith; and Aberbrothock; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Stirling, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Aberdeen, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  Petitions against, from Limehouse; and St. George's, Hanover Square; to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Sheffield, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Kington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LUNACY BILL.
  Petition from Sheffield, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (SCOTLAND) LATER OPENING BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment, from Brechin; Fraserburgh; and Montrose; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Ellwood; Kingsclere; Woodlands; Bideford; Pill; and Holbeach; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions against, from Wakefield; Swansea; and Huddersfield; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Bleasby Moor; North Willingham; Bridgwater; Exeter; Fletchertown; Huddersfield (four); Lambeth; Birmingham (three); Bedford; Brixton Hill; Louth; Upper Norwood; Barnstaple; Woodhouse; Hillsbro'; Spotland (two); Rochdale; Eccup; Shepshed; Winchester; East Brighton; Sheerness; Diss; Glasgow (two); Dewsbury (two); Canterbury; East Cornwall; Pill; Gateshead-on-Tyne; Ipswich; Matlock; Aberffrwd; West Norwood; Bideford; Durham; Redhill; Barnstaple; Wolverhampton; Kilmarnock; Tulse Hill; Appledore; Sittingbourne; Maryport; Clifton; Westbury Park; Bosworth; Stapleton; Woolwich; Howden-le-Wear; Cleveland; Holbeach (three); Taunton (three); Upper Bont; Muswell Hill; Golcar; Delph; Bath (two); East Bristol; Garth Maesteg; Maesteg; Resolven; Brighouse; Queensbury; Stratford (two); Llantrissant; Barry Dock; Bristol (twelve); Luton; St. George (two); Fishponds; Shettleston; Lochgelly; Levern; Henley; Wells; Scarborough; Brynamman; Llandebie (two); Llanedi; Kingsclere; Woodlands; Llannon; Stockton-on-Tees; Manordilo; Baling; Carmarthen; Newcastle; Barton upon Irwell; Barnsley (five); Rotherham; Dartford; Halifax; Ash; Adisham; Yardley; Cleveland; Uxbridge (two); Kingsdown; Pontlottyn; Hebburn Colliery; South Shields; St. Neots; Cricklewood; Kensington; London; York; Bexley; Warmley (seven); Lonwells Green; Warmley Tower (four); Siston Common (three); Kingswood; Wallsend on Tyne; Wincobank; St. Davids; Folkestone; Llansawel; Llanlluan; Gateshead; Wigan (two); Sheffield (six); Reigate; Malvern; Wrexham; and Higham on the Hill; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Largs; Keith; Dumfries; Dalbeattie; Campbeltown;
  274
  Pittenweem; Ardrossan; Glasgow (two); Aylesford; Darvel; Arbroath; St. Andrews; Cramond; and Dundee (six); to lie upon the Table.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  Petitions for legislation, from Sheffield; and Dartford; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Llansawel; Garth Maesteg; Bristol; Maesteg; Hay Mills; Kingsclere Woodlands; Scarborough; Brynamman; Llandebie (two); Llanedi; Manordilo; Shettleston; Northfield; London; Bath; Sheffield (three); Ash; Wallsend; St. Neots; Pontlottyn; York; Bridgwater; North Wellingham; Bleasby Moor; Hillsbro'; Eccup; Birmingham; Spotland (two); Winchester; Sheerness; Rochdale; Bedford; Gateshead-on-Tyne; South Devon; Glasgow; Redhill; Bideford (two); Wolverhampton; Llanbadarn Upper; Durham; Woolwich; Pill; Taunton (two); Brixton Hill; Bargoed; Liverpool; Pontypridd; Higham on the Hill; Llanarthney; St. David's; Gateshead; Wrexham; and Wigan (two); to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Garth Maesteg; Brynamman; Llannon; Llandebie (two); Llanedi; Manordilo; Pembroke Dock; Pen Buallt; Pontlottyn; Maesteg; Pontnewynydd; Aberffrwd; Upper Bont; St. David's; and Llanlluan; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
  Paper [presented 15th June] to be printed. [No. 207.]
  NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom for the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th June; Mr. Ritchie]; to lie

  275
  upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 208.]

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th June; Mr. Ritchie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 209.]
  RAILWAYS.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade on an Application made during the year 1899 under the Railway Companies' Powers Act, 1864, and of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 210.]
  ARMY (PAY, NON-EFFECTIVE PAY, AND ALLOWANCES).
  Copy presented, of List of Exceptions to the Army Regulations sanctioned during the year ended 31st March, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEER RIFLE RANGES).
  Copy presented, of Grants which it is proposed to make out of the sum of £40,000 taken for this purpose in the Military Works Loan, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address, 15th June; Mr. Jesse Collings]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 211.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2450 to 2460 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Copy presented, of Forty-second Report of the Board of Superintendence, with Appendices, for the year 1899–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
  Account presented, of the Receipts and expenditure under the Act for the year 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 212.]
  FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Abstract Accounts of Fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks for 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 213.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 15th May, 1900, approving certain Pilotage Bye-laws made by the Humber Pilotage Commissioners [by Act] to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 15th May, 1900, recognising in this Country Certificates of Free Board (Load Line) issued by the Government of South Australia to Vessels registered in that Colony [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of St. John's College, Oxford, on 9th December, 1899, amending Statutes III. 1, III. 14, V. 4a, and XV. 2, of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 214.]
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of Worcester College, Oxford, on 24th January, 1900, amending Statute III. 16 of the Statutes of the College [by Act]: to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]

  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 15th May, 1900, declaring that Acetylene, in admixture with air or oxygen gas, shall be deemed to be an explosive within the meaning of the Explosives Act, 1875 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S REPORT).
  Copy presented, of Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CAPE OF GOOD HOPE OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Astronomer to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty for the year 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Richmond Bridge.—Cash Account for the year 1899 [by Act].
  EAST INDIA RAILWAYS (PURCHASE).
  Address for "Copy of any Correspondence between the India Office and the Bank of England regarding the rate of interest to be adopted in the calculation of the annuities for the purchase of the East Indian Railway, the Eastern Bengal Railway, the Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi Railway, and the Great Indian Peninsula Railway, respectively."—(Mr. Cohen.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1899.
  Copy ordered, "of Tables showing the progress of British Merchant Shipping." —(Mr. Ritchie.)

  MARRIAGE ACT, 1898.
  Return ordered, "giving the following particulars of the results of the Marriage Act, 1898, during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1900—
  "1. Number of 'registered buildings' for which 'authorised persons' have been appointed under Section 6 of the Act, classified according to religious denominations as follows: Wesleyan Methodists, Primitive Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, other denominations;
  "2. Number of 'authorised persons' so appointed;
  "3. Number of marriages which have taken place under the Act;
  4. "Number of cases in which there have been serious irregularities by 'authorised persons' in connection with the marriage certificates."—(Mr. Price.)

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR — SIEGE OF LADYSMITH—CLAIM AGAINST THE MAYOR.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Imperial authorities have presented a bill for several thousands of pounds to the Mayor of Ladysmith for food for the inhabitants during the siege; and whether payment is to be insisted upon.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I have no information on the matter.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman obtain the information?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think so. This is a matter well within the competence of the commanding officers in South Africa. It seems to me, on the face of it, to be a mere question of bookkeeping. Clearly an officer cannot issue stores to civilians without entering the fact. The whole question of indemnity is a very large one, and will, I am sure, be considered in a generous spirit later on.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will put down another question later.

  CASUALTY LISTS—4TH SHERWOOD FORESTERS MILITIA.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the casualty list of the 4th Sherwood Foresters Militia Battalion has been received; and, if so, when it will be published.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Some of the casualties were published on the 12th June and some on the 16th June. A complete list has not yet been forwarded from South Africa, but it will be published as soon as it arrives, in conformity with uniform practice.
  MR. YOXALL: Will the hon. Gentleman, seeing that these casualties took place eleven days ago, wire out for those affecting the rank and file?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The only effect of doing so would be probably to cause further delay. These casualties are collected and telegraphed with the utmost possible expedition, and the hon. Member must remember that for four days we could get no information at all from Lord Roberts.

  FARQUHAR'S FARM ENGAGEMENT— STRENGTH OF THE 60TH RIFLES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a field-state showing the numbers and

  279
  composition of the battalion of the 60th Rifles engaged at Farquhar's Farm, near Lombard's Kop, on Monday, the 31st October, is in the possession of the War Office; what number of officers was present with the battalion; and how many of them had been with the battalion for at least two years.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I am unable to give the right hon. Member this information, as the field-states are not sent to the War Office.

  SETTLEMENT OF SOLDIERS IN SOUTH AFRICA AFTER THE WAR.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any arrangement has been made for the settlement of properly qualified soldiers in South Africa at the close of the present war; and, if so, whether it is proposed to form any organisation in South Africa for the purpose of giving effect to the intentions of the Government in this respect.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The matter is receiving the earnest consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I am in communication with Sir A. Milner on the subject, and an inter-Departmental Committee is about to be appointed with representatives of the War Office, Treasury, and Colonial Office, to deal with the subject.

  OFFICERS' ESTATES AND THE DEATH DUTIES.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have come to any decision regarding the re-mission of the death duties to widows of those officers who have lost their lives in the service of their country during the present war.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The hon. Member will find the result of the consideration of this subject embodied in section 14 of the Finance Act of this year.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT— EXTENSION TO NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVANTS — WAR RELIEF FUNDS COMMITTEE.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the need to make
  280
  adequate provision for the widows and orphans of soldiers killed in the war, he can now state the steps the Government propose to take in pursuance of the resolution of the House of 1st May, 1900.*
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Government quite recognise the necessity for further arrangements making adequate provision for the widows of soldiers and sailors. They propose to take immediate steps to frame a scheme for carrying out that object.
  MR. KEARLEY: Will the House be afforded an opportunity of discussing the recommendations of Lord Justice Collins's Committee? You propose to take the opportunity I have obtained for to-morrow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt every hon. Member would be tolerant of his day being taken away if another were found for him; but to sot apart a day for the discussion of this Report would be an exceptional proceeding, which I do not feel justified, in the circumstances, in taking.
  MR. KEARLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the opportunity of discussing the proposals he intends to submit to the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If they are submitted to the House there will be an opportunity for discussing the Government proposals, but I can make no promise with regard to them.

  PENSIONS FOR DISCHARGED WOUNDED AND SICK SOLDIERS.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will inform the House to what extent the powers of the Chelsea Commissioners have been enlarged recently to admit of a higher scale of pension being accorded to men incapacitated by wounds or disease contracted on service.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: At the same time may I ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state what bonus, gratuity, or pension soldiers invalided home through wounds or sickness receive on their discharge from the service.
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxii., p. 489.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The cases of all soldiers discharged on account of wounds or sickness are decided by the Chelsea Commissioners, who assign pensions according to the nature of the injury, the soldier's rank, and the duration of his service, within the rates laid down by the Pay Warrant. These rates, for non-commissioned officers and men wholly disabled by wounds, run from 1s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a day; for men partially disabled, from 6d. to 3s. a day. The recent extension of the powers of the Chelsea Commissioners refers only to cases of men disabled by disease. Formerly the rates of pension which could be granted in such cases depended entirely on rank and length of service, and the maximum for a private was 8d. a day. By Army Order 75, issued on the 1st of April, the maximum was raised to 1s. for privates, and the Chelsea Commissioners were empowered to determine the rate in accordance with the circumstances of each case.

  TRAINED DOGS FOR OUTPOST DUTY.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that for a number of years past in several Continental armies numbers of dogs have been specially trained for the purpose of assisting in outpost duty, and whether, in view of the repeated cases of surprises that have occurred during the present war, the Government will seriously consider the expediency of following in this respect the example of these foreign military powers.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: This proposal will be carefully examined in addition to others which the experience of the war has suggested.

  RESERVE OF ARMS.
  MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 2nd Volunteer Battalion Wiltshire Regiment, H Company, who are now 142 strong as against 70 last year, have only 80 rifles at present, and whether, seeing that the adjutant indented for extra rifles early in April, he will receive them without further delay in order that the drill may be efficiently conducted.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The demand for these arms was only sent to Weedon on the 8th instant, and the arms have now been despatched. The delay was caused by the neglect of a clerk in the Ordnance Office in the Southern District, and he has been punished.
  MR. WARNER: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the Royal Reserves are armed before any more rifles are issued to the Volunteers?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: There seems to be some misunderstanding. There is an ample supply of rifles in the country, although the issue may in some cases have been delayed owing to application having been made in the wrong quarter.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it not the fact that in consequence of not having received their rifles the Royal Reserves were unable to parade on the Queen's birthday?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Some of these regiments were only formed a few days before the Queen's birthday.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: For one year.

  ALDERSHOT MANŒUVRES—HEAT FATALITIES—ARMY CLOTHING.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state what were the losses amongst the troops engaged in the field day at Aldershot last Monday, how many hours the troops were engaged in the operations during the excessive heat, what rations were served out to them during the day, and whether the Commander-in-Chief at Aldershot was with the troops on that day; and whether, in future, care will be taken that troops in ordinary uniform and with head gear unsuitable as a protection from the sun shall not engage in field days during the excessive heat.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The General Officer commanding at Aldershot was with the troops. On the other points in the question I must refer my hon. friend to the full reply I gave to similar questions put on Friday, the 15th instant.† As I mentioned then, each regiment engaged in the operation has been called on to
  † See page 144 of this volume.

  283
  report what arrangements were made both for giving the men breakfast before they started and for providing refreshments during the day; and the following has been received from the General Officer commanding at Aldershot—
  "With reference to your telegram of the 16th June, 1900, I have the honour to report as follows:—
  "1. Reports received from commanding officers state that all men had breakfast before starting for the field day on the 11th inst.
  "2. Light refreshments were actually supplied and carried by every unit, some in the haversack, but in the majority of cases in transport carts.
  "3. The only units that did not receive their refreshments on the 'cease fire' sounding were the 5th Worcester Regiment and the 4th Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers.
  "In the case of the 5th Worcester Regiment the officer commanding reports that the cart conveying the refreshments went astray during the operations.
  "As regards the 4th Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the commanding officer reports that a contractor had undertaken to supply the battalion with bread and cheese. At the hour of the departure of the battalion he failed to appear. A mule cart was then loaded with the refreshments, but, owing to the driver not being acquainted with the locality in which the operations took place, the cart unfortunately did not turn up."
  MR. JEFFREYS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the inquest on one of the men it was stated that the contractor had orders to take out supplies but failed to do so, that another cart was then sent out to try and find the contractor, which also failed, and that certainly in the case of one regiment, if not more, no food was supplied.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I suppose that that regiment is one of the two referred to.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: May I ask whether the final decision of the Secretary of State upon the whole of the business will be laid on the Table of the House before the Vote is taken for the War Office.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I do not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by the final decision.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I understood the Secretary of State had instituted an inquiry into the circumstances and called for a report, upon which I presume the noble Marquess will express an opinion.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I imagine that the matter is narrowed down to two points— namely, headdress—as to which I gave information on Friday—and light refreshments, as to which I have just given information.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Is there to be no further statement in explanation of the catastrophe?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I shall be pleased to expand my statement if the right hon. Gentleman will indicate on what lines he wishes me to proceed. I do not see that I have anything to add.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: With regard to the question of headdress, may I ask whether the old forage cap of the British Army was not capable of having a sunshade put over it, and whether the troops did not go all over India at the time of the Mutiny with that headdress.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The questions are now developing into a debate.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there to be no inquiry into the circumstances, and no court-martial?
  MR. JEFFREYS: Will the contractor who failed to carry out his contract be punished in any way?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: There has been an. inquiry, and it is for the House to determine whether that inquiry was not sufficiently exhaustive. For my part I feel that we are departing very widely from decentralisation by taking out of the hands of the officers in command matters with which they are perfectly competent to deal. I think we should risk much in assuming that any officer in command does not realise to the full the great responsibility which rests upon him.
  MR. BARTLEY: Did not the same thing happen in 1878?
  COLONEL SANDYSalso rose and put a question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question on the Paper has. already been; fully answered.

  MILITIA OFFICERS' TRAINING ALLOWANCES.
  MR. LOWE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the mess allowance of 4s. a day, hitherto granted to quartermasters of Militia during the period of annual training, has been withdrawn on the embodiment of their regiments; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that these officers are put to much extra expense on being detached from their permanent stations, the Secretary of State for War can see his way to authorise the allowance to be granted in the same manner as during the annual training period.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer my hon. friend to a reply to a similar question put by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Pembroke and Haverford west District on the 17th May.† I then explained that the mess allowance was inadmissible, but that a money grant as compensation for disturbance would be considered; and on the 26th of May‡ Lord Lansdowne stated in another place that he proposed to make such a grant. The details have not yet been settled.
  MR. WARNER: Does that apply to adjutants?
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, to all the permanent staff.

  CHANNEL FLEET—VISIT TO SHETLAND.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty will he explain why, although a portion of the German fleet has repeatedly visited Shetland in the course of its summer cruise, and quite recently a squadron of warships, including several large battleships, spent several days in Lerwick Harbour, where a body of our Naval Reserve men get their training, British warships of any size hardly ever visit Shetland, and are believed to purposely avoid navigating the seas there; whether he will take steps so that the Royal Naval Reserve men of Shetland shall have an opportunity of seeing a British fleet, and not derive their ideas of a Navy solely from foreign fleets; and will he order the Channel Fleet to visit
  † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiii., p. 398.
  ‡ See ibid., page 1257.
  286
  Shetland this year in the course of its summer cruise, a visit which has been often asked for in past years.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): Although Lerwick has not been visited by the Channel Squadron of late years the Training Squadron has frequently done so, the last three occasions being 1895, 1896, 1899. Kirkwall, which possesses a better and more convenient harbour, seems to have been preferred by the officers commanding the Channel Squadron during their visits to northern waters. It is possible that the Squadron, or a portion of it, may visit Lerwick when the Squadron is again in the north, but I can give no undertaking that an opportunity will occur during the present year. I may remind the hon. Gentleman of my answer to a similar question last year, that the visits of Her Majesty's ships to particular ports must be determined by service considerations alone.

  ASHANTI—NATIVE RISING—INVESTMENT OF COOMASSIE.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETThad on the Paper the following question:—To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say who is responsible for the deficiency both of provisions and ammunition among the British garrison of Coomassie; and whether he can state why a larger relief force was not despatched to Coomassie over a month ago. The hon. Member was not, however, in his place to put it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think this question ought to remain on the Paper unanswered, because it seems to imply a state of things which is not correct. Reserves of food and ammunition for 300 men for three months were kept in Coomassie, and this was considered by the local authorities, who are responsible, to be sufficient. On the first intimation of the rebellion a much larger force than the local authorities then considered necessary was sent to the Gold Coast, but owing to the reluctance of the Gold Coast natives to engage as carriers, and to the extraordinary difficulties created by the heavy rains, the advance of the relieving column has been delayed. I am in constant communication with Colonel Willcocks and the local Government as to the best mode of dealing with

  287
  the situation thus created and its possible developments. I may add that it is due to the energy of the Governor of Sierra Leone, Sir Frederic Cardew, that we have been able to send to the Gold Coast 3,000 odd carriers from Sierra Leone, and that, generally, we have in every case endeavoured to send to the Gold Coast more, and not less, both of stores and of men than have been requisitioned by the local authorities.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN MOVEMENT— RECENT OPERATIONS.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is there any information that can be given to the House with regard to the state of affairs in China?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): We have no news from Sir Claude MacDonald later than the 12th instant, but nothing has reached us to confirm the rumour of a general attack on the legations at Peking. The latest telegram from Admiral Seymour's force is dated 13th instant, the telegraph to Tientsin having been cut. A Japanese man-of-war which arrived at Chefoo last night from Ta-ku reported that the commander-in-chief and troops had returned to Tientsin. The Ta-ku forts opened fire on gunboats in the mouth of the river on Sunday at 12.30 a.m.; the ships then engaged the forts, and the engagement was proceeding when the Japanese ship left at 5.30 a.m. Detachments from all the ships of war were landed on Saturday to protect Ta-ku. There was one Chinese ship of war at Ta-ku remaining passive. As regards reinforcements, the British troops from Hong Kong will reach Ta-ku on Thursday. We understand that Russian, French, and Japanese reinforcements are due about the same date. Additional British ships are on their way from Manila and Hong Kong. I need hardly say that no effort is being spared to get in touch with the Admiral, and to give him every support in our power. In the last hour we have heard that telegraphic communication has been re-established with Ta-ku and Tientsin via Helampo, north of Manchuria.
  MR. YERBURGH: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have sent him private notice— namely, whether it is the intention of
  288
  the Government to send native troops from India to reinforce the garrison of Hong Kong?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer to my hon. friend's question is in the affirmative.

  MOROCCO—SUGGESTED EUROPEAN INTERVENTION.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the present condition of affairs in Morocco, which it is alleged is such that the leading and intelligent classes of Morocco would welcome some form of European authority that would secure justice to the inhabitants; and whether the time has come when Her Majesty's Government, as representing the country possessing the largest trade interest in Morocco, would consider the advisability of calling a conference of the Powers with a view to the establishment of some concerted European influence over the Moorish Government, in order that the present form of government which prevails, under which open slave markets flourish, may be brought more in conformity with the civilisation of the times.
  *MR. BRODRICK: No information has been received which would lead to the belief that European authority would be welcomed in Morocco. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. The orders to the Governors of coast towns to prevent the public sale of slaves were renewed in 1898 at the request of Her Majesty's Minister, who will make representations to the Moorish Government if it should at any time come to his knowledge that these orders are being neglected.

  EAST INDIA RAILWAY CONTRACTS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it has been brought to his notice that the East Indian Railway Company, which is guaranteed by the Indian Government in respect of its interest, has recently placed orders in Germany for wheels and axles instead of in Sheffield, and if the representative of the Government or the Board will be instructed to urge that the shipments shall at least be effected on British ships.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): My honourable friend is aware that the Secretary of State, although he is represented upon the boards of the guaranteed Indian railways, does not control the management or working of the lines. I am informed that for business reasons, as well as on patriotic grounds, a decided preference is given as a rule to goods of English manufacture; but in this case the difference in price, amounting to about £12,350 between Messrs. Krupp's tender and the lowest available English tender, was so great as to make it impossible to adhere to the usual practice. The principles which govern the acceptance of tenders for goods apply equally to tenders for freight. I do not propose to give any special instructions on this occasion, but I have no doubt that British shipping will be employed, unless its employment would involve an unreasonable charge upon the company.

  BRITISH TRADE WITH THE SOUDAN.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the volume and value of British exports and imports to and from the Soudan since the battle of Omdurman.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Statisics of British exports and imports to and from the Soudan are included in the returns of trade with India, and no separate figures can at present be given. Such information as is available as to the trade of the Soudan since the battle of Omdurman is contained in the report by Lord Cromer, Egypt, No. 1 (1900).

  RAILWAY COMPANIES AND PASSENGERS' PERSONAL LUGGAGE.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the intention of the railway companies, in some cases already put into practice, of enforcing charges for passengers' luggage when exceeding a low maximum weight; and whether in view of the inconvenience to the travelling public, especially at holiday times, and of the hardship to people of small means, the Board of Trade will undertake
  290
  to make suggestions to the railway companies with a view to inducing them to discontinue or largely modify their charges.
  The following questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  SIR CAMERON GULL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the joint notice recently issued by the railway companies stating that from 1st May passengers are to be allowed only the following quantity of personal luggage free, namely—first class, 120 lb.; second class, 100 lb.; third class, 60 lb.; and that any excess will be charged for; and whether in view of the fact that under their statutes several companies, either on the whole or on certain parts of their systems, are bound to allow a greater quantity of luggage free, he will take steps to see that these companies do not continue to make these charges, and will require them to display in a prominent place in their stations the amount of free luggage to which each class of passenger is entitled on the various sections of their lines, and the charges which are to be made for any excess.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that though passengers on the South Eastern and Chatham Railway are entitled to 120 lb. free luggage first class and 100 lb. second class, the company is charging, as regards its through Continental traffic, 6d. each package for registration, and 1s. 1d. for each 10 lb. or part of 10 lb. over 96 lb., while if a bicycle is carried it is not only charged for separately, but is also weighed in with the passenger's luggage and charged for again; and whether, if this is so, he will communicate with the company with the view of putting an end to such charges.
  MR. RITCHIE: I will answer the questions of the hon. Members for the Barnstaple Division of Devonshire and the Elland Division of Yorkshire at the same time. Although the Board of Trade have no power to regulate the amount of or charges for passengers' luggage they are very sensible of the importance of the question and of the confusion and irritation which will certainly arise as soon

  291
  as the holiday season commences. The Board will therefore at once communicate with the Railway Association on the subject. The Department will also address a letter to the South Eastern Company upon the special point affecting that company which has been raised by the hon. Baronet.

  EDUCATION OF POOR LAW CHILDREN.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state how many boards of guardians send their poor law children to public elementary schools; whether this practice is advocated by the Department; also, how many boards send their children to the public elementary schools, and keep them in the workhouse out of school hours in contact with the adult paupers.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): According to the latest returns 508 boards of guardians send their children to public elementary schools. This practice has for many years past been strongly advocated by the Local Government Board. I am not in a position to give any precise information on the point referred to in the last part of the question, but I may state that in the more populous unions the children are kept in buildings separate from the rest of the paupers, and that in all cases they are required to be treated as a separate class, so that they may be brought as little as possible into contact with the adult paupers.

  BOARDING-OUT PAUPER CHILDREN.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can say what number of boards of guardians board out the children chargeable to them within the union, and in how many cases the children are under voluntary committees of management, and in how many cases they depend solely upon inspection by the medical and relieving officers.
  MR. CHAPLIN: On the 1st January last 410 boards of guardians boarded out children within the union. In eighty-three unions voluntary committees have been authorised to board out children
  292
  within the union. Where there is no such committee it devolves upon the medical and relieving officers to make periodical visits and reports with respect to the children.

  METROPOLITAN VEHICULAR REGULATIONS.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the dangers which occur in crowded thoroughfares from the fact that drivers of covered vans are not obliged to have sidelights; whether he is aware that in nearly all Continental capitals there is a strict regulation on this point, and that it is rigidly enforced; and whether he can see his way to have this precaution made also compulsory in London.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): Covered vans from which drivers are unable to see the traffic on either side of them are undoubtedly a danger; but the police have no power to make any regulation on the subject.

  REPORT OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the portion of the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops, which was stated to be ready in May, will be distributed to Members.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The whole of the Report was completed and sent to the printers a month ago. The date of its issue now depends entirely on the printers, who have been and will be pressed to expedite the work.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC OPEN-AIR PROCESSIONS—DISTURBANCE AT PECKHAM.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an open-air procession of Roman Catholics, some of them being ecclesiastics wearing the habits of their orders and exercising the rites and ceremonies of their religion, which took place at Peck-ham on Sunday, 27th May; whether such procession took place with the per-

  293
  mission of the Chief Commissioner of Police; and whether the powers conferred on the Chief Commissioner of Police as to permitting organised processions in the Metropolitan Police are to override the express statutory prohibition contained in 10 Geo. IV. c. 7, s. 26; and whether the proclamation of 15th June, 1852, drawing Attention to the illegality of such open-air processions, is still in force.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The statute referred to does not confer on the Commissioner of Police any power either to consent to or to prohibit such a procession as that mentioned in the question. The duty of the police is simply the ordinary duty of preserving order. The law on the subject is contained in the Act mentioned in the question and not in the proclamation.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Cavan, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the attack made on a religious procession in Peckham on the 27th May; whether he is aware that Lieutenant-Colonel Martin Whale, of the Royal Marines, was one of the leaders of the riotous party which attacked the procession; and whether Whale is on full pay, or on half pay, or in receipt of any salary or pension from the War Office; and, if so, what action the War Office has taken in the matter.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: This should be addressed to the Admiralty. The War Office has no jurisdiction over the Royal Marines.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am prepared to answer at once. I have seen a newspaper report which gives a summary of the occurrence in question. It is stated that Colonel Whale, a retired officer of Royal Marines, on meeting the religious procession referred to, had shouted a protest, and in consequence, lost his hat, and that he seemed well satisfied with his day's work. The case does not appear to be one that would justify the withholding of retired pay earned by a service of twenty-four years.

  UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CABLE BETWEEN LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing
  294
  the Postmaster General, whether the underground electric cable between London and Birmingham is working satisfactorily, and whether it will be extended northwards, in order to prevent a recurrence of the prolonged interruption of telegraphic communication between England and Scotland caused by last winter's snowstorms.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The underground telegraph line to Birmingham meets the demand for uninterrupted communication over that part of the country where destructive gales are most prevalent; but it is not at present found to be so generally useful as an overground line, and the Postmaster General cannot at present contemplate its extension to the North.

  SUNDAY DUTY IN THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether Sunday duty in the General Post Office, which has hitherto been performed by volunteers, will in future be compulsory on all the staff; whether the work at present done on Sundays is more than can be performed by the number of volunteers at present available; and whether the Post Office authorities are actually removing from Sunday duties those who have volunteered to perform them, and are forcing these duties upon men who conscientiously object to work on Sunday.
  MR. HANBURY: Sunday duty will in future be compulsory on all members of the staff of the Circulation Office who entered the service on the condition that they would be liable to such duty. This condition was first imposed in 1898. At present the work on Sundays is more than can be performed by the volunteers available unless some, at any rate, of them attend every Sunday, and regular service seven days a week is not desirable either in the interests of the Department or of the men themselves. Such officers as may desire to avoid attendance on Sundays are at liberty to provide approved substitutes.
  MR. CHANNING: Is there any limit as to this duty?
  MR. HANBURY: Does the hon.

  295
  Member mean with regard to the number of Sundays or the period of duty?
  MR. CHANNING: Both.
  MR. HANBURY: A man may not do it more often than every other Sunday, and I believe the duty is limited to five hours.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT SCHEDULES.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that copies of rate books at present supplied to clerks of unions do not contain the names of lessees and owners, which are essential for the purpose of making out Labourers Act Schedules; and whether as under this system professional men, auctioneers, and other persons have no means of obtaining information required for their business unless at the county offices, and in view of the inconvenience caused to officials and to the general public by the withdrawal of the valuation lists from the offices of the clerks of unions, he would advise the Local Government Board to restore the practice that existed previous to the Local Government Act, 1898.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The new rate books contain only the names of occupiers or of lessees and owners who are liable for rates under Section 52 (1) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and the Local Government Board do not consider that these books should be burdened with additional information which has no connection with the rate, and is merely required in order to enable schedules for the Labourers Acts to be prepared without reference to the valuation lists in the county council offices, and to facilitate "professional men and auctioneers" in their private business—as suggested in the question.

  DUBLIN COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND ART.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is a want of employment in Dublin, and whether he can state when the new buildings for the College of
  296
  Science and Art will be commenced in that city.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not aware that there is any special want of employment in Dublin at present; and as regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture to a somewhat similar question put to him on the 26th March,* to which reply I have nothing to add.

  RENT CASES IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any complaints as to the delays which have occurred in fixing rents in Clare, and whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the working of the Land Act in that county.
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not aware that any complaints have been received of the nature mentioned in the question. I am informed that a sub-commission has been continuously at work in disposing of applications to fix fair rents in Clare during the past two years, and that a considerable number of additional cases from the county have been listed for hearing before a sub-commission which will commence its sittings on Friday next. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

  THE DISSOLUTION—THE PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is proposed to take stops to accelerate the registration of Parliamentary voters this year, so that, in the event of a Dissolution in the late autumn, the General Election may be taken on a new register.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has apparently access to information about the Dissolution which is not at my disposal. But whatever date the Dissolution may be fixed for, I do not think that any alteration in the registration of voters ought to be preliminary to it.
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxi. p. 331.

  WELSH SUNDAY CLOSING BILL.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has received a number of communications from county councils and other public bodies and meetings in Wales appealing to him to give the necessary facilities for passing into law during this session the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill; whether he is aware that this Bill is based upon the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission appointed by the Government of which he was a member in 1889; and whether, seeing that this Bill passed its Second Reading without a division on 9th May, and in view of this general consensus of opinion as to its principal provisions, he will endeavour to make such arrangements as will allow the remaining stages of the Bill to be passed this session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is probably as well aware as I am that it is practically impossible to make exceptions in favour of private Members' Bills.

  BRITISH MUSEUM—EXTENSION OF BUILDINGS—THE BRITISH MUSEUM BILL.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the trustees of the British Museum are at present prepared with plans for its extension, and whether they have funds bequeathed to them which may be applied to this purpose.
  MR. HANBURY: Under the will of the late Mr. Vincent Stuckey Lean the trustees are entitled to a bequest of £50,000 for "the improvement and extension of the library and reading room." A plan for the extension of the museum which would comply with the terms of the bequest at an estimated cost of £150,000 was put forward by the trustees in 1899. Its consideration has been deferred, as the Bill now before Parliament to authorise the trustees to deposit copies of local newspapers with local authorities and to dispose of value less printed matter would set free a large amount of space.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Is it not true that the Treasury wrote to the
  298
  trustees of the museum in August last informing them that they could not feel justified in acceding to any proposal for the extension of the buildings until an attempt had been made to take the opinion of the House, with a view to giving new authority to the trustees for the disposal of newspapers and other printed matter.
  MR. HANBURY: I think my answer implied that.
  MR. J. MORLEY: That being so I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give facilities before the end of the session for the discussion, if not the passing, of the Museum Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We consider the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman refers to be a Bill of a public character, and we are more or less responsible for it in the way stated by my right hon. friend. But whether it would be possible for me to find time this session for the discussion of the Bill is a question which at the present moment I cannot answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask what will be the business for next Thursday and Friday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My expectation is that the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill will be taken on Thursday, and the Home Office Vote on Friday.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is it certain we shall get the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops, on which the discussion of the Home. Office Vote turns, by Friday night? If we do not, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to proceed with that Vote?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will make inquiry. If it is impossible to have the Vote circulated, I will not press the Vote under conditions which would render the-discussion of it more or loss nugatory.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: We have been told the Report is in the hands of the printers. Perhaps we can have it in a day or two. I will put down a question for to-morrow.
MR. YEEBURGH: Do the Government intend to proceed with the Money-lending Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think I have any statement to make upon that subject, but it will, perhaps, be more appropriately raised in the course of the debate which is about to be initiated on my motion.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to the Public Health (Ireland) Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I now rise to move the resolution which stands in my name. I think it will, broadly speaking, fit in with the wishes of the House, and I am certain that it will fit in with its convenience. It is in accordance with precedent that it should be moved by me about this time; in fact, I think it has very frequently been moved before this date. I am aware that the motion will have the effect of depriving certain hon. Members of the opportunity they have obtained of discussing questions which interest them, and, possibly, other people also. That is an inevitable misfortune, but I think it is only due to the Government to say that, as far as I am aware, not a single Tuesday has been taken in the course of this session for advancing the ordinary Government programme of legislation. Tuesdays have been taken for the financial business of the year, but not for the purpose of advancing any single Bill which the Government have upon the Order Paper. In these circumstances, now that we have reached this stage of the session, I think it not unreasonable that the Government should ask the House to give further facilities for proceeding with their general programme. As this is not the time to make a statement with regard to any possible diminution of the size of that programme, I will content myself by moving the resolution of which I have given notice.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That for the remainder of the session Government business do have precedence on Tuesday and Wednesday (except on Wednesdays the 20th and 27th of June),
300
and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to all the days of the week."—(Mr. A. Balfour.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not imagine that there will be much disposition to find fault with a motion of this kind being made at this period of the session, but I am very much surprised to find it unaccompanied by any statement whatever with regard to the prospects of legislation for the rest of the session. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes for a precedent, I would remind him that last year when he made a similar motion he announced what Bills would be proceeded with, and on previous occasions, when such a motion has been made, that explanation has always taken place. I may speak quite frankly. There are certain Bills as to the future fate of which there is considerable doubt in everyone's mind—no doubt as to how the House will regard them, but doubt as to the serious intentions of the Government to proceed with them. I should have thought that this was the very occasion on which the House might expect and, in fact, is entitled to have some information with regard to the fate of those Bills. I do not know when the right hon. Gentleman proposes that there should be a statement made which will enable the House to discuss this part of the Government's proceedings, and I think that most Members will share my astonishment at the course the right hon. Gentleman has taken. As to whether the Government should now take the whole time of the House with certain exceptions, there is, I think, little to be said on that point. I think the right hon. Gentleman stretched his demand upon the assent of the House a little too far when he said the Government had not previously in the session taken Tuesdays for legislative business. He admitted that they had taken them for financial purposes, and I would point out that in so doing they freed other Government days for legislative work, and the effect upon the rights of private Members was exactly the same as if the Tuesdays had been used to advance Government Bills. Now, I have an appeal to make to the right hon. Gentleman. He proposes to give us two Wednesdays for the further discussion of certain more fortunate Private Members' Bills. In the past, three Wednesdays have usually been

301
set apart for that purpose, and I do not; know why he is so niggardly with his allowance on the present occasion. I think, after looking into the matter, that it requires a little more consideration than seems to have been given to it. We have now an experience extending over a year or two of this proposal, and I can only say that it has worked in a hap-hazard way. I do not know what is the rule as to the seniority of a Bill. A Bill may be read a second time unanimously, and it may have entered on the Committee stage, but another Bill, referred to a Standing Committee, may take precedence of it. That is an irregular form of arrangement which I think hardly carries out the intention of the rules of the House. There is a Bill for prohibiting the sale of drink to children under sixteen years of age. This is a Bill which has created an immense amount of feeling throughout the country. I am —as no doubt is the right hon. Gentleman—in receipt of communications from all quarters with regard to this Bill. The representations have come tome not from those interested in party questions, not from fanatics, not from those having strong opinions on the licensing question, but from churches, Sunday schools, and other recognised institutions in their thousands, showing that there is an immense amount of feeling on both sides quite apart from party division. One memorial signed by some thousands of Sunday-school teachers and managers has come from Liverpool. The Bill received the unanimous assent of the House. ["No, no!"] Well, there was no division on it. But now it is in the third place, not in the first, because it was not referred, at the request of the Home Secretary, to the Standing Committee. I believe that if my hon. friend had resisted the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the feeling of the House was such that his motion would have been carried and the Bill would have retained its precedence. Other Bills I could mention have met a similar unfortunate fate. I object to this happy-go-lucky system and its effect on the Bills before the House. The feeling in the country is very strong on this question, and I make an appeal to the Government to give some special opportunity for the further progress of this Bill. My object in rising was to point out that the rule works unequally, unfairly, and deserves the attention of the right hon.
302
Gentleman, who has done so much, while Leader of the House, to increase the efficiency of our manner of conducting business.
*MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman in the ex parte statement he has made on behalf of a Bill set down for consideration on a future day. But I must enter my protest against the statement that the Bill was unanimously accepted by the House. What occurred was that it came on unexpectedly in the absence of most of the opponents of the Bill, and so far from being unopposed the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that it will be strongly resisted in its future stages in this House, and I must say that it would have been more candid if he had recognised these facts in his references to the subject. But without following the right hon. Gentleman into the somewhat irregular channel into which he has attempted to draw the House I should like to put before my right hon. friend reasons why he certainly should not give more Wednesdays up for the purpose suggested by the right hon. Gentleman If he requires time he should take it impartially from Members who are interested in motions and from those who are interested in Bills. In regard to the present motion we are asked to give up for the rest of the session any power we possess of raising any question, be it important, urgent, or otherwise, in this House. I shall be told perhaps that Standing Order No. 17 makes provision for raising questions of urgency. My reply is that, for reasons with which the House is familiar, that has ceased to be the safeguard which it was intended by its promoters to be. I will not, however, go into this question in detail. I notice that my right hon. friend approaches this subject of Motions for Adjournment on matters of urgency in a somewhat changeful mood in fact, his attitude is somewhat suggestive of that which dominated Pharaoh during the intervals between the Egyptian plagues. At times he is very sympathetic, but at other periods, when the immediate peril has subsided, he relapses into hardness of heart. I could go on to remind my right hon. friend of other examples, but perhaps I had better not do so, lest I give rise to misapprehension. I would refer however, to an allegorical personage—

303
and I do not suggest for one moment that my right hon. friend reminds me of that personage in either shape or form, for on the contrary I regard him its the embodiment of his absolute antithesis — hence I may allude to the allegorical personage who, when sick, was alleged to have formed resolves in the direction of becoming a monk, or, as some versions have it, a saint, but whose aspirations towards canonisation, and yearnings for the cloister, evaporated on convalescence. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman will admit that, by the interpretation which has been put upon our procedure, we may be precluded by a Member absent in South Africa, or even by a Member here, from raising any of those important questions which it was intended we should be enabled to raise under the Standing Order I have referred to. I do not wish, however, to offer any objection to the taking of private Members' time for the banâ fide purpose of winding up the session, which, I take it, is the real object of the right hon. Gentleman's motion, but I do wish to point out that he is placing us in an unprecedented position with regard to our powers of raising questions of urgency, and I certainly hope he will give this matter consideration at the earliest opportunity.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: We are called upon to-day to sacrifice a large number of Private Members' Bills to which there is practically no opposition at all, and we are called upon to do this without knowing what is to be the probable fate of at least four Government Bills that are likely to take a great deal of time, and which will in all probability be dropped. We are, therefore, asked to decide this question in the dark. We cannot possibly say whether two or three Wednesdays will or will not be required for Private Members' Bills until we compare the Government Bills which are likely to be dropped, and the Private Members' Bills which will be killed if this motion is carried. This matter is one of some importance on account of its bearing on the procedure of the Standing Committees of this House. The Standing Committees this year have been very hard-worked indeed; they have had, and still have a larger number of Bills under their consideration than has ever been the case before. A consider-
304
able number of those Bills are measures to which there is either little or no opposition at all, so far as one can judge by the Second Reading debates and the discussions before the Standing Committees themselves. The Government Bills to which I have especially referred are four in number. I do not speak of Scotch or Irish Bills with which I am not acquainted, but speaking of English Bills there are four which, from what we have heard and seen for ourselves, seem likely to be dropped. It is probable the Companies Bill will be dropped. If the Government had intended to persevere with that useful measure, in which so great a number of Members are interested, I imagine they would have made some progress with it before this time. The fact that it has been put in a fair position among the Orders of the Day on almost every Monday, but never in a very high position, loads those of us who have some experience of these matters to think it is not intended by the Government to pass that Bill this session. There is also the Factory and Workshops Bill, which has occupied a position just below the Companies Bill all through the session, and with which also there has been no serious attempt to go forward. Then there is the Money-lending Bill, which was the subject of inquiry recently, and there is another Bill, also of importance, and one which is rather actively opposed— namely, the Dogs Regulation Bill. I imagine there are few Members under the impression that the Government will pass these Bills through the House, and yet the fact that they will not tell us what they mean to do in regard to any of them keeps us in the dark in this debate. On the other hand, the Private Members' Bills of this year are very numerous and important—I mean not the ordinary Private Members' Bills which are brought in every year, but Bills which have either passed through or are still before the Standing Committee or have been read a second time unanimously or by overwhelming majorities. I may add one other Bill, in which, throughout the Empire, great interest is taken, and which stands in a position somewhat similar to those I have mentioned—a Bill which is passing not through this House, but through the House of Lords: I mean the Colonial Marriages Bill. This is a measure which has in its favour an overwhelming majority in both Houses

305
of Parliament, but to which, if this motion is carried, we shall not be able to afford any time. But, putting aside the Colonial Marriages Bill, there are a singularly large number of Bills this year which, although in the hands of private Members, have passed through, or are before a Standing Committee. If this motion is carried, in what an extraordinary position the two Standing Committees will remain during the rest of the session! They will have Bills coming before them on four days a week, and Members will be asked to attend at great inconvenience, to make great sacrifices, to give up all other engagements, and to sit in this House for twelve hours a day with the certainty that their work will be entirely useless, knowing that those Bills with which they are called upon to deal, if a single Member opposes them, will have no chance whatever of passing into law. There is the Workmen's Compensation Bill which has passed through Standing Committee, and it stands first for next Wednesday. There can be no doubt that that Bill will pass. It passed its Second Reading unanimously, and it passed through Standing Committee after a great deal of discussion, but without any opposition. Though very short, it is an extremely complicated and difficult Bill, which undoubtedly deserves and will receive careful consideration at the hands of the House. There is every probability that on Report next Wednesday, and on Third Reading the Wednesday after, the measure will occupy the whole of the sitting. That, therefore, is the one Bill to which this proposal gives a chance, all other Bills, as it appears to me, having no chance whatever if this motion is carried. Among the other Bills there is the Merchant Shipping Bill, in the hands of hon. Members opposite, which has passed its Second Reading and the Standing Committee, and in which a great number of shipping Members are interested. There is the Borough Funds Bill, a Bill of the utmost importance, in regard to which there is a general agreement, and which, on pledges being given that certain modifications should be made in Committee, passed its Second Reading without opposition. Those modifications were made, and the Bill passed very rapidly through Standing Committee, but still, if a single Member of this House opposes that Bill after this motion is carried, it will be lost. I say a single
306
Member of this House, because it is unfortunately the fact—and a fact which I think is a scandal in relation to the performances of this House—that during the last four or five years, if two Members have actively opposed any Private Member's Bill, that Bill has not been carried. I believe that during the last two or three years no Private Member's Bill has been carried which was actively opposed at all its stages by even a single Member. The Bill of last year as to children under thirteen years of age, although very actively opposed on the Second Reading and Committee stages, was not really opposed on Report or Third Reading. In addition to the Bills to which I have referred, there is a Scotch Bill coming before the Standing Committee—namely, the Town Councils (Scotland) Bill, a very important Bill, and one which will, no doubt, pass through the Standing Committee, but with the certainty that if one Member actively opposes the Bill all the labours of the Standing Committee with regard to it will be lost. Then there is the County and Borough Franchise (London) Bill, a Bill to which a great number of Members attach very high importance. That Bill is down to come before the Standing Committee. There is a general agreement as to what it should contain, but it is a Bill of a kind which is almost certain after it has passed through the Standing Committee to meet with opposition from one or two Members of this House if it is known that such opposition is sufficient to kill the Bill. That is a case of a Bill which, although supported by an overwhelming majority of the Members of this House, will undoubtedly be killed if this motion is carried. Then there is the Sunday Closing (Wales) Bill, which also has still to go before the Standing Committee, and which also no doubt will be killed by this proposal. I venture to suggest that there never has been an occasion when the issue presented to the House by this seemingly unimportant motion was more important on its bearing on the forms of the House than on this occasion. There has never been an occasion when the practical difference in modern times between what was meant by the resolution as to business after Whitsuntide and the actual fact was more startling than it is to-day. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the manner in which Bills

307
are grouped after Whitsuntide. That proposal was one carried by Sir Stafford Northcote's Committee, by which, on Wednesdays after Whitsuntide, Bills were placed in order according to the amount of progress they had made. When that proposal was carried the idea was that it should apply to the remaining Wednesdays of the session until we reached August, and that was the practice of the House. But when the operation of the Standing Order is narrowed to two Wednesdays only it becomes ridiculous, and as every Member of the House knows, it stands now in a ludicrous position. We should not be in order on this or any similar occasion when we are discussing a motion to take time— although our minds cannot be free from the consideration of the matter— in dealing with proposals to change the forms of the House. I am one of those who think the House, or large bodies of Members of the House, should have the power of deciding on the order in which Bills should be presented to the House. We should not, however, be in order in discussing that or any such proposal on this occasion, but the scandal of the present system—the certainty that all these Bills, upon which so much labour has been bestowed, which have occupied and still will occupy the attention of the Standing Committees (if under these circumstances quorums can be obtained to consider the Bills) will be sacrificed by this resolution for a Government programme which is not announced to us—seems to me to be greater on this occasion than ever at any time before.
MR. COURTNEY:.I think many Members share the feeling of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, as to the novelty of the position taken up by my right hon. friend the Leader of the House on this occasion. On all former occasions, as far as I can remember, when it was proposed to absorb additional time after Whitsuntide, it has been recognised that something was being taken from private Members, and the Leader of the House has given assurances that the time so taken should be spent on certain definite objects. It was a kind of "give and take" arrangement, from which I think my right hon. friend has on this occasion for the first time departed. It is a rather remarkable and, I think, unfortunate
308
circumstance. It is especially unfortunate in view of the fact, put before us by the right hon. Gentle-man the Member for the Forest of Dean, that a large part of the Government programme will probably not be persevered with. There is no serious suggestion that some of the Bills will be carried into law, while, on the other hand, there are a great number of Private Members' Bills, in some of which the Government themselves have a kind of interest, which will be entirely destroyed or shorn of all chance of success by the proposal now before us. For example, there is the Bill which was made the subject of question and answer to-day—a Bill which, was brought in under the charge of private Members but which, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, was instigated by the Government themselves. That Bill may or may not command the assent of the House, but it is a measure which ought to be allowed to come under consideration. My object in rising to-day, however, is not merely to repeat what has been said so admirably by the right hon. Gentleman, but to point out that there is really no reason this year for the restriction of the exceptional Wednesdays to the first two after Whitsuntide. When the rule was first adopted giving after Whitsuntide precedence to Bills in the order of the amount of progress they had made, the right of private Members to Wednesdays was not interfered with until the end of July. We used to have all the Wednesdays after Whitsuntide to the end of July, and the Orders were absorbed for Government business. That is quite defensible when there is a large amount of public business in which we are all interested impeded in its progress. But that does not apply this year, and we are not justified in adopting the new plan of restricting the Wednesdays allowed to private Members to the two mentioned in the resolution, when the motive for the restriction is not present. Besides the Bills which have been proceeded with in this House, there is one which has commanded a majority in another place, and which would be sure to pass this House, as we have not even a Bench of Bishops to give a majority in opposition to it—I mean the Bill with respect to colonial marriages. That Bill will be shut out altogether in the event of this resolution being adopted. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the fact that

309
it will be within the power of any one; Member to prevent further progress being made with any of these Bills. But as soon as the Government absorb every evening and every afternoon, pressure is naturally and rightly put on the Government to adopt the further rule of moving the adjournment of the House as soon as Government business is disposed of. On these grounds I think there is a very strong case for reconsidering the proposition made by my right hon. friend. I think the House would be well advised in excluding altogether Wednesday from the purview of the resolution before the House. I do press very strongly upon the right hon. Gentleman that Wednesday should be excluded altogether from this motion.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I think the House has some ground to complain that the right hon. Gentleman has not given any reason except a purely formal one for the motion which he asks the House to accept. He has asked permission to take Wednesday up to the end of the session without telling the House what he proposes to do with the Wednesdays which will be absorbed. Hitherto a proposition of this kind has never been made only upon the ground that there was a mass of Government business to be got through, but on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has not followed even his own precedent. On the 19th of June last year* the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House made a similar proposal, and moved a resolution in the same words, and in his speech in support of the motion he said—
"I do not propose to give an exact programme of what we hope to pass, because that would be impossible; nor has anyone in my position, at this period of the session, ever attempted such a task."
Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to read a list of the various measures before the House, the various stages they had reached, and what he thought would happen to them. What is still more important, the right hon. Gentleman gave the House a pledge with reference to the introduction of any future measures to the effect that no Bills of a controversial character would be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"I do not, of course, say that all these measures will, as a matter of fact, pass into
* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxii, page 1502.
310
law before we separate, but I hope very substantial progress will be made with the list which I have just read to the House."
What the right hon. Gentleman did then was to give the House an idea of what was passing in the mind of the Government, so that the House was put in possession of what the Government proposed to do in, regard to the business for the rest of the session. I agree with what has been said, by my right hon. friend as to the very important Private Members' Bills which have not yet been disposed of, and about which there can be very little doubt that, they will not be disposed of this session. But at any rate we have a right to know what the Government intend to do with their own Bills, what they intend to proceed with, and what they do not intend to proceed with. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean has alluded to two Bills which the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his speech last year. For example, there is the Money-lending Bill. I think the House has a right to know whether the Government are in earnest about that Bill or not. There is another Bill which has not been mentioned, with reference to which I must say that if it is not proceeded with it will amount almost to a public scandal—I refer to the Companies Bill. That is a serious scandal in commercial life which ought to be dealt with at once. It is not in an incomplete state. That measure has been under the consideration of the House of Lords and the Judges and others for three or four years, and they have sent the Bill down to this House. I do not mean to say that the measure is perfect, but upon many points connected with it there is a general assent among the commercial and legal public. If the Government would put their foot down they can carry that Bill through the House during the remainder of this session. [Mr. GIBSON BOWLES dissented.] My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn shakes his head, but I think even his opposition might be overcome by a strong Government. Then there is the Factories Bill, and there is also another measure which I think ought not to be put on one side this session under the peculiar circumstances of the case—I mean the Colonial Marriages Bill. That is a Bill which the Imperial Parliament, ought to deal with. It has ben passed by an enormous majority this session on the Second Reading in the House of

311
Lords, and it is a Bill upon which there can be no shadow of a doubt that there is an enormous majority in this House in favour of it. I think also that the time has arrived when the right hon. Gentleman should make a stand with regard to the enormous power which insignificant majorities in this House have of preventing legislation which the majority of this House desire to pass. I think the time has arrived for a thorough reconsideration of a great many of the rules of the House, for many of them are not adapted to meet our needs. An enormous amount of the time of the House of Commons is deliberately wasted session after session, and especially the references to Grand Committees requires reconsideration. I consider the mode of reference to Grand Committees is a departure from the principles which Mr. Gladstone laid down when he made the motion for these Grand Committees, because the House has now thrown upon them a larger amount of business which it has become impossible for them to pass through during the remainder of the session after Whitsuntide. I think all these questions—and especially the 17th Standing Order to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet has alluded—require to be dealt with, for this Standing Order places it within the power of one hon. Member to prevent the House of Commons from discussing most important questions affecting the Empire. I think all these things ought to be sufficient to convince the right hon. Gentleman that the time has arrived to reconsider some of our rules of debate. Upon the present occasion the right hon. Gentleman has not told us for what purpose he is asking the House of Commons to adopt this course. I think the House ought to know to what purpose he intends devoting the time which he is asking the House of Commons to concede.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As several hon. Members of great importance in this House, occupying leading positions with regard to public business, have risen in their places and attacked me on the present occasion, I think I ought not to defer my reply to the strictures they have passed. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has laid special emphasis upon one of those criticisms. The light hon. Gentleman has repeated with more elaboration the charge made
312
by the Leader of the Opposition that the Government have failed on this occasion to explain the need for further facilities for the conduct of Government business. The right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I have in this respect carefully followed precedent. The right hon. Gentleman quoted, to my great surprise, a speech of mine made last year on the 19th of June, at a similar period of the session, when I asked for similar powers. If the right hon. Gentleman had road that speech carefully he would see that I deliberately declined, either in that speech or in the course of the debate which followed, to in any sense indicate what Bills the Government were determined to pass or what Bills they felt bound to sacrifice. There was a period of the session which was well known to hon. Members—the Parliamentary "massacre of innocents" —on which that statement was made to the House; but on the present occasion it was never made, and I certainly did not make the statement when I asked last year for the privilege I now ask the House to give. It would be impossible at this period of the session to make such a statement; it would be in the highest degree inexpedient for the Government to attempt to foretell the various measures which should be proceeded with, a power which even the most experienced Members certainly could not lay claim to. How is it possible to foretell the length of time the various motions on the Order Paper will take? It is not possible, and until the Government have some further information on that point, in my judgment it will be in the highest degree inexpedient to give the right hon. Gentleman the information he desires. I pass from the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton to the criticisms made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, who preceded him. As I understand them, they say that the number of Private Members' Bills is so great, and they are of such great importance, that the Government ought to sacrifice their own time and allow these Wednesdays to remain in the possession of private Members. I entirely dissent from that view. I think that it would be a departure from precedent, and it would not conduce to the general con-

313
venience of the House. I also must enter, not for the first time, my protest against the view that Private Members' Bills stand on an equality of treatment with Government Bills. They do not stand on the same equality of treatment. Time after time the hon. Member for East Mayo has protested against Government Bills being brought in under what is known as the Ten Minutes Rule. A private Member may bring in a Bill abolishing the House of Lords, or the Monarchy, not under the Ton Minutes rule, but without a word being said. No Government has ever attempted to bring in a Bill making a really important constitutional change without observing the full forms of the House, involving a consequent expenditure of time. It has now become practically a fixed rule and tradition of this House, although it is not embodied in the Standing Orders, that whatever a Private Member's Bill may be it may be brought in at twelve o'clock on Wednesday, and then that four and a half hours of discussion is enough to decide the principle of that measure. I am not aware that either you, Sir, or your predecessor in the Chair has ever refused the closure for a Bill brought in under these conditions. What Government Bill of any importance has over been allowed to pass this House after a discussion of four and a half hours? Such a state of things would not be tolerated. We should be told that it was a gross invasion of Parliamentary privileges if the Government asked for, and Mr. Speaker granted, the closure on any first-class measure, or even on any second-class measure of importance after four and a half hours discussion. Why has this House tolerated these peculiar privileges to Private Members' Bills on their earlier stages? Is it because the House attaches greater value to the legislative efforts of private Members than to the legislative efforts of the Government? It has never committed itself to any doctrine so absurd as that. The real truth is, although it is not embodied in the forms of the House, that the great majority of our Wednesday afternoon Bills are not discussed at all in a manner comparable with the discussion on Government measures. The discussions are more in the nature of decisions of the House on certain abstract propositions conceived to be embodied in the Bills before them. Every hon. Member knows
314
that what I say is correct. An hon. Member will get up and say, "This is an absurd Bill; it contains this or that impossible provision, but yet it embodies some principles I approve of, and therefore I will either abstain or will vote for the Second Reading." That is not the way Government Bills are treated or ought to be treated. If we are going to give all these privileges to private Members' Bills in their earlier stages, and then in addition extend to them all the privileges of Government Bills in their later stages, I think our legislative system will fall into chaos, and the legislative business of this House will not show itself to the best advantage. As regards the particular measures which have been mentioned I have another answer. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said: "Here is the Companies Bill, which is a most important Bill; a Bill to cut out the gangrene which is eating into our commercial system, and it will be a public scandal if it does not pass this year." But what chance has it of passing unless we get the time?
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Will you pass it?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, yes; we want to pass all our Bills. For the right hon. Gentleman to say in one breath that this motion ought to be opposed because it takes away the time of private Members, and then to blame the Government for not passing Bills, seems to me a position so inconsistent that I hardly believe the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the argument he is using. Allusion has been made to my speech last year on a similar occasion. It is quite true that that speech was longer than the speech with which I introduced the motion on this occasion, but we had to deal with several important controversial Bills, and the House was anxious to know what future legislation the Government contemplated. If the House desires the assurance, I can assure them that no controversial business, so far as I am aware, other than that already before the House or that has been introduced in another place—there are two Army Bills, I think, in another place—will be taken I quite agree that it would be most unfair to ask the House to give us this time and then start a large number or even a single controversial Bill of which no

315
notice had been given. We do not propose to take any such course. Hon. Gentlemen will find in the Order Paper which was issued this morning a full account of all the controversial business, or business which may be described as controversial or important, which the Government will attempt to pass. I am told that the Agricultural Holdings Bill and the Sea Fisheries Bill are not on the Paper, but they are included in that statement. I quite recognise that hon. Gentlemen have a right to the pledge I have just given. I do not, of course, promise that no Departmental Bills will be introduced, but even a Departmental Bill, if seriously opposed or opposed at all, will not be pressed on the notice of the House. I hope, under these circumstances and after the explanation I have given, the House will assent to the motion without a division.
MR. KEARLEY: The speeches which have been delivered so far on this motion deal with the question of Bills, but there is a great deal in what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, that some amount of consideration should be given to motions. I am interested in a motion which I, at all events, and many people in the country feel to be one of urgency. I was very much surprised at the reply which was given to my modest request for an opportunity to discuss this motion. We might well expect that we should be given an opportunity of discussing first of all the Report of Lord Justice Collins's Committee on the administration of war funds; and, secondly, the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman tells us the Government have under consideration with reference to this question. I should be out of order in going into details, but I should like to press one important fact on the attention of the House. That is, that the flow of public benevolence in the way of providing pensions has practically come to an end, and there is no further expectation of any larger contributions being made by the public. That is perfectly obvious to anyone who has followed the amounts contributed day by day. On the other hand, the number of widows, as a result of the war, amounts to 2,000, and I am told they will continue to increase at the rate of 250 or 300 per month. I merely mention that to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that this question
316
is urgent, and to press him again to give us an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Committee, and also the proposals of the Government with reference to it. The time is ripe for that discussion. This is no matter of an abstract resolution, but a matter in which the country is deeply interested. I intend to make my protest unless I get some satisfactory assurance. Meantime I will move the Amendment which I have handed in, which is to exclude to-morrow, which is the day on which the motion would come on.
MR. CHANNING: On a point of order, wish to ask whether the Amendment of my hon. friend has priority over my Amendment, which is to leave out all words after Tuesday, so as to restrict the effect on the motion to Tuesdays.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must move to substitute "Tuesdays" for "Tuesday," and to leave out to the end of the line. That Amendment takes precedence of the other Amendment.
MR. CHANNING: In moving my Amendment, which seems to me to be the logical outcome of the unanswered and unanswerable speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, I should like to make one remark as to the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, which seemed to be as unsatisfactory as it was singular. The right hon. Gentleman deprecated abstract discussions.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never did anything of the kind.
MR. CHANNING: I do not mean that the right hon. Gentleman in terms deprecated abstract discussions, but what he did deprecate was the giving a further time to private Members on the ground that Wednesdays were usually occupied with abstract discussions. But I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that Private Members' Bills which have obtained the assent of the House with unanimity or without division, and which represent the opinion of the majority of the House, and presumably of the country, cannot be regarded as

317
matters of abstract discussion, but as the practical decisions of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to withhold time from these Bills, and not to give further facilities for them, although it has been proved by the decisions of the House itself that they are not mere abstract questions, but questions of practical urgency. The right hon. Gentleman fell foul of my right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton for challenging his policy in not making any statement whatever as to the use of the time which the Government propose to take. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman has already forgotten that the Companies Bill held the first place in the Queen's Speech in the present session, and that it has already passed the House of Lords. It is singular and unprecedented that at this period of the session such a Bill should be left in the lurch, and that the right hon. Gentleman is not ready to make any statement regarding a measure of such urgency and importance to the commercial interests of the country. The right hon. Gentleman is in this dilemma—that he has given no case for the Government proposals, and he refuses time for the proposals of private Members—an unprecedented number of which have unanimously passed their Second Reading, have been sent to Standing Committees, and have received the laborious consideration of many Members of this House. I venture to say that in a session like this—there might be some sessions in which he would undoubtedly be justified in making his present proposals—but in a session like this when the enormous number of measures referred to by the right hon. the Member for Forest of Dean are waiting for the final decision of the House, it would be a monstrous scandal if the House of Commons did not allow further time for carrying to completion Bills which have received general assent.
MR. SOUTTAR: I beg to second the Amendment, and to make an appeal to the Leader of the House, who perhaps knows that I had the opportunity of bringing in a Bill on the 9th March which passed its Second Reading. It has been said by the right hon. Gentleman below the gangway that that was an accident; but I do not understand the meaning of the word "accident" as applied to a Bill in that way.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: It came on at an unexpected hour.
MR. SOUTTAR: I can only say that it was on the Order Paper of this House eight times before it came on, and that if it came on unexpectedly it did so in a very crowded House, and all the benches were full and hon. Members were standing below the Bar. But I do not desire to base my appeal on that ground at all. I believe that the heart of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is in the right place with regard to this measure, and I should be most grateful, and I am sure many others on his own side of the House would be likewise grateful, if he could give our case some little kindly consideration. I know perfectly well that the gift of another Wednesday would be valueless unless he gave the case his personal consideration; but I am certain that one word from him would be golden, and this measure might then easily pass into law. I may say one thing in regard to the Bill which may not have reached the right hon. Gentleman's notice. The fact that I am connected with this particular measure is an accident. Five Bills drafted in almost exactly the same phraseology and having precisely the same effect were introduced this session—three of which were promoted from the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House—one by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Glasgow, one by the hon. Member for Norwood, and the third, begun in another place, was initiated by one of the Belfast Members. It will be seen that there is a wonderful unanimity of feeling in regard to this particular measure, for each one of these five Bills had five separate sets of backers, and in two cases these backers were almost entirely members of the Conservative party. I do trust the right hon. Gentleman will be kindly in this matter and do something to help forward a measure in connection with which much good will be done in the country. If he will only help it he will gain great popularity in the country and strengthen the position of his own supporters.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, to leave out the word 'Tuesday,' and insert the word 'Tuesdays,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Channing.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'Tuesday' stand part of the Question."
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Members the mover and the seconder of the Amendment have with great ability shown the strongest part of the Government case. If there is a day that can be spared to the Government it is Wednesday—far before Tuesday. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire has given a very apposite illustration of the mischief that can be done on Wednesdays. He says that the Second Reading of the Bill in which he is interested was not an accident, and then he proceeded to prove that it was an accident by saying that it had been eight times on the Order Paper before. Surely if it came on on the ninth time that may be considered accidental. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire says that these Bills represent the unanimous vote of the House, or that the vast majority of the House pass them. It is perfectly well known that never on Wednesdays is there a vast majority of the House present, but only a small minority who occupy the afternoon in bringing forward motions or Bills which cannot come on on any other day. I maintain that the vast majority of the Bills read a second time on Wednesdays are so read because the House knows perfectly well that they will never be heard of again. I have not the legislative appetite of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, who seems to think that we should spend all our time in passing Acts of Parliament. Most, or at least many, of these Acts do a great deal more harm than good. As to the Grand Committees which he held up to our approbation—the attempt to delegate the business of this House to a portion of its Members has been a complete failure. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment dwelt upon the fact that the First Lord of the Treasury in his first speech did not specify the Bills which the Government intended to go on with; but the right hon. Gentleman has remedied that in his second speech, for he has now told us that what is on the Blue Paper is what the Government seriously propose to go on with, and that they will deal with nothing else that is contentious. [Mr. BALFOUR dissented.] I understood the First Lord to say that there were certain Bills on the Blue Paper which were uncontentious, but if there were any contentious Bills they would not be pressed.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope I have not been so obscure in my statement. What I said was that the Blue Paper contained the full Government programme with the exception of one or two Bills which were before the Committees, and one or two Military Bills which are in the House of Lords, and that outside that no new measures of a contentious character would be proceeded with.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What escaped me was the proviso in regard to Bills before Committees. The Bill I was thinking of, the Undersized Fish Bill, is before a Committee, and that is a very contentious measure and will be very strongly opposed when it again comes before the House. Undoubtedly at this time of the year the Government have a very considerable case for taking—I won't say the Tuesdays, but the Wednesdays. I therefore shall be able with a most unseared conscience to vote against the Amendment now made. Of all the days of the week the most mischievous is Wednesday, and the least useful. I think when I come to the Tuesdays which this Amendment proposes to give to the Government—
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of order in referring to Tuesday under this Amendment.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then, when the debate on the main question is resumed I am afraid I shall have to trouble you with further remarks. All I say in regard to Wednesdays is, that I shall hail with pleasure their disappearance from the private Members' programme. I am a member of a very useful Committee—the Public Accounts Committee— which meets on Wednesday, and my attention will not be diverted from the important work on that Committee in order to come downstairs to vote against private Members' Bills on that day. Before I sit down I wish to dissociate myself from the remark made by the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet when he throws doubt on the existence of a personage I was always taught to believe in. If that historical personage and his dwelling place are to be regarded as wholly allegorical, then he has deprived many pious friends of their greatest hopes,—for other people.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I cannot refrain from uttering my protest against a resolution the effect of which is to cut off any chance of a Bill in which I am interested becoming law—the Bill, namely, to amend the Welsh Sunday Closing Act of 1881. That Bill passed without a division its Second Reading on 9th May. It is not an abstract question; nor is it a useless Bill. It is a Bill which is founded upon the deliberate judgment of two Commissions, and which I venture to say has a body of support in Wales which few measures introduced in this House have had in previous years. I do not intend to take up the time of the House on the present occasion in elaborating my protest, but it is impossible for me, knowing as I do, the great interest that the people of Wales take in this Bill; knowing how easily it might be passed, seeing it is a simple, short, and noncontentious Bill—to refrain from expressing my great regret that the Leader of the House, in answering my question, should have said that there is very little chance of giving any favourable consideration to the Bill during the present session. I admit that the root of the difficulty we are in in regard to these Bills is not the present motion, but the rules of the House; and I hope the day is not far distant when some arrangement will be made which will enable a Bill of this kind, with so much support, to be passed into law, and thus carry out the predominant sentiment of the people of Wales.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has put a considerable strain upon the loyalty of those who are his supporters, including myself. In my earlier remarks I began by saying that this was not an unreasonable motion to be made at this time of the year; but I did expect that the right hon. Gentleman would give us some reason for the support which he wants us to give him. We wish to know what he means to do with the time when he gets it; and I think he has departed from the usual practice on this matter. But now it is proposed that Wednesdays should be left and that Tuesdays should be taken. This is a sort of discussion in which every man is most anxious to sacrifice his neighbour. If I am interested in a Tuesday, then I say that the Wednesday should go; if I am interested in the Wednesday, then it
322
is the other Way. I think we should be impartial in regard to this matter. Notwithstanding the unfortunate effect of our present rules upon certain Bills— one of which I dwelt upon as being a very good case—I do not think that on that ground we are entitled to jump to the opposite extreme, and leave the whole of the Wednesdays alive for the private Members to the end of the session. It may be a very right thing, possibly, that the Wednesdays should belong to private Members from one end of the session to the other; but let it be done in a deliberate way, and regard paid to the rules of the House in a wider spirit, not simply because there happens to be a great number of useful private Members' Bills at the present moment on the stocks. The development of private Members' Bills, no doubt, has been great. I do not know that it was originally intended, when Standing Committees were set up, that private Members' Bills were to be sent up to them at all; but they do go to them, and the' consequence is that we have great labour expended on these Bills at this choking time of the session, and then they are deprived of all sort of useful life. I deplore that, but at the same time I think it is the fault of our rules, which ought to be remodelled with a view to prevent the recurrence of such circumstances. I hardly see my way to support the Amendment, which would take the whole of the Wednesdays from the Government for the rest of the session and give them to private Members.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I quite sympathise with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. I think we should all of us wish to give the Government the Wednesdays at a somewhat more reasonable period than is proposed by the present motion. I am perfectly ready to leave it to the House to modify the Amendment, so that only a certain number of Wednesdays should be excepted, leaving it to the Government to propose later on to take the whole time of the House. Before I sit down I wish to add my strong protest against the blocking of the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill, in regard to which there is a very strong feeling in Wales. But there is another Bill of even greater importance—the Bill, namely, to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors to children

323
under sixteen years of age. Only this morning I received from a board of guardians of which I am a member, and which stands very high indeed amongst the well-administered boards, a resolution to the following effect—
"The guardians of this board being of opinion that a large proportion of the pauperism and crime of this country is due to the excessive consumption of intoxicating drink—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is going beyond the limits of comment on the motion before the House.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I submitted myself to the House before I began to read. I have simply to say that I have a very strongly worded resolution from a board of guardians—
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of order.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: By way of apology, I wish to say that I am only desirous of emphasising the importance of the Bill which the Government are now intending to burke.
MR. COURTNEY: I understand that the Amendment is to except the Wednesdays from the present resolution. But I would point out that the present resolution, however amended, is one that can be amended again. Even if the Amendment were carried the Government can return at the end of the month, say that they want to get more time, and then take the Wednesdays. It seems to me that the Amendment would not accomplish what the hon. Gentleman desires.
MR. TRITTON: I intend to vote for the Amendment, because I want some more time to be accorded in this House to the consideration of what I believe is one of the most important Bills before the House this
session. The Bill I refer to has been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, and he told us the sad and somewhat hard fate that had befallen it. It was the first Bill carried through to a Second Reading, and that without any opposition, and it was put down for the first Wednesday after Whitsuntide in the sure and certain hope, as far as anything can be made sure and certain in this House, that it would have the first place after the Whitsuntide recess. Hon. Members will see that there are now two other Bills of very considerable importance placed before it. The Bill to stop the sale of intoxicating liquors to children is the outcome of the Joint Reports of the Royal Commission, and it has received unanimous support throughout the country. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would say, if asked, that there had been more petitions sent up in favour of that Bill than any other this session. It has met with the approval of a very large number of benches of magistrates. No fewer than fifty-four had done what they could to dissuade publicans from selling intoxicating liquors to children.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is justified in calling attention to a Bill, but not in giving all the reasons which may be urged in support of it.
MR. TRITTON: I certainly will not trespass for a moment on your ruling, Mr. Speaker. If Her Majesty's Government cannot see their way to grant a Wednesday for the remaining stages of that Bill, I offer them an alternative course—let them take it up as a Government measure, and crown their many social achievements by passing a Bill which will be fraught with the greatest possible blessing to the young people of this country.
Question put.
The House divided: — Ayes, 236; Noes, 118. (Division List No. 145.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Baldwin, Alfred

Aird, John

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

Allhusen, Augustns H. E.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Allsopp, Hon. George

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Balcarres, Lord

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Bartley, George C. T.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Monk, Charles James

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

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Beach, Rt Hon. W. W. B. (Hants)

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Beckett, Ernest William

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Bethell, Commander

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh)

Biddulph, Michael

Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Bigwood, James

Graham, Henry Robert

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Bill, Charles

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

Blakiston-Houston, John

Gretton, John

Myers, William Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gull, Sir Cameron

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Bond, Edward

Gunter, Colonel

Nicholson, William Graham

Bousfield, William Robert

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. R. Wm.

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Brassey, Albert

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Peel, Hn. William R. Wellesley

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hardy, Laurence

Pender, Sir James

Brown, Alexander H.

Hatch, Ernest Fredk. George

Penn, John

Butcher, John George

Heaton, John Henniker

Pierpoint, Robert

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow)

Helder, Augustus

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Carlile, William Walter

Henderson, Alexander

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Purvis, Robert

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

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

Pym, C. Guy

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

Rankin, Sir James

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Houston, R. P.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

Howard, Joseph

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

Howell, William Tudor

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel W.

Charrington, Spencer

Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

Round, James

Chelsea, Viscount

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Coddington, Sir William

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenh'm)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Savory, Sir Joseph

Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Cox Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Keswick, William

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Kimber, Henry

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Curzon, Viscount

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

Lafone, Alfred

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

Dalkeith, Earl of

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Stock, James Henry

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Strauss, Arthur

Denny, Colonel

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

Leigh-Bennett, H. Currie

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Leighton, Stanley

Thornton, Percy M.

Donkin, Richard Sim

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swan.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield)

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Drage, Geoffrey

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Hart

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Liverpool)

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

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lowe, Francis William

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Tantn)

Faber, George Denison

Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Finch, George H.

Macdona, John Gumming

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

MacIver, David Liverpool

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Maclure, Sir John William

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Wrightson, Thomas

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Malcolm, Ian

Wyndham, George

Garfit, William

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Gedge, Sydney

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

Young, Commander (Berks. E.)

Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond)

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Younger, William

Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Middlemore, John Throgm'r'n

TELLERS FOE THE AYES—

Gilliat, John Saunders

Milward, Colonel Victor

Sir William Walrond and

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Monckton, Edward Philip.

Mr. Anstruther.

326

327

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gurdon, Sir William B.

Perks, Robert William

Allison, Robert Andrew

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Asher, Alexander

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Reckitt, Harold James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hazell, Walter

Redmond, William (Clare)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hobhouse, Henry

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Billson, Alfred

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Broadhurst, Henry

Jacoby, James Alfred

Runciman, Walter

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh'e)

Burt, Thomas

Kinloch Sir John GeorgeSmyth

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kitson, Sir James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Caldwell, James

Langley, Batty

Steadman, William Charles

Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'lnd)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Carew, James Laurence

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Strachey, Edward

Causton, Richard Knight

Leng, Sir John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Clark, Dr. G. B.

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Thomas. David A. (Merthyr)

Crombie, John William

M'Dermott, Patrick

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

M'Ewan, William

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wallace, Robert

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

Dewar, Arthur

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wason, Eugene

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mather, William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Doughty, George

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Williams, John C. (Notts.)

Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Wills, Sir William Henry

Duckworth, James

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

Dunn, Sir William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid)

Emmott, Sir Alfred

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh N.)

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

Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

Woodhouse, Sir J. (Huddersf'ld)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Yoxall, James Henry

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Moulton, John Fletcher

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Oldroyd, Mark

Mr. Channing and Mr. Souttar.

Gold, Charles

Paulton, James Mellor

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I beg to insert after the word "on" the words "Tuesday, the 19th." I venture to express the hope, seeing that this is a matter of such extreme importance, of such enormous interest to the public, and of such real urgency, that the right hon. Gentleman will accede to the request made in this motion. Now that we are in sight of a triumphant conclusion to the war in South Africa, I believe there is absolutely no subject whatever that interests the people of this country to a tenth part of the extent that the subject matter of the resolution which will be cut out from the proceedings of to-morrow, unless my Amendment is carried, interests the people. I do not know whether hon. Members quite realise what the urgency of this question is and its importance. It is only a few days ago that a newspaper, which is generally supposed to share and to sympathise with the prin-
328
ciples of the party opposite, had a headline, and the announcement made in it was "A Soldier's Reward: Wounded at Modder River, and sent to the Workhouse." I venture to think that, with evidence like that of what is actually taking place in the country now, a sense of disgrace and a sense of shame is felt by the vast majority of the citizens of this Empire. Surely that sense of shame must weigh a hundredfold upon those who have the honour, and responsibility of a seat in this House. I venture to think that the responsibility must weigh a thousandfold with the members of Her Majesty's Government. I believe that the mass of the people of this country feel that the absence of care for the wounded soldiers of the war, and the absence of protection and care for the widows and orphans of those who have given their lives to the nation, is a matter that ought to be looked after by the nation. It is not a thing that ought to be

329
left to local administration and the administration of the poor law.
*MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was discussing a question which was beyond the scope of the Amendment.
Mr. E. J. C. MORTON: Of course I obey your ruling, but I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that there is urgency in this matter. It has been pointed out by my hon. friend when he rose previously to move the Amendment I am now moving that the supply from private charity has already ceased. The amount already received from private charity is altogether inadequate, and considering what I know to be the feeling of the country, almost in every part of it, upon this matter, and with regard to the urgency of it, I venture to beseech the Government to allow us to have one day to discuss it. It is a matter of most vital national importance, especially in view of the fact that our wounded soldiers are now being sent to the workhouse. We have had an instance within the last
few days of the way the Government has neglected up to the present to state to the House or the country what provision they intend to make to deal with this vastly important matter.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, after the words 'except on,' to insert the words 'Tuesday the 19th and.'"— (Mr. Edward Morton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The speech of the hon. Member is one of the most uncalled for I have ever listened to. No announcement as to the intentions of the Government with respect to this question more satisfactory to the hon. Member than that which has already been made could be elicited by a hundred speeches such as that which he proposes to make.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 93; Noes, 250. (Division List No. 146.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Reckitt, Harold James

Allison, Robert Andrew

Horniman, Frederick John

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Asher, Alexander

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Rickett, J. Compton

Barlow, John Emmott

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Billson, Alfred

Jones, David Brynmor (Swan.)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Birrell, Augustine

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Broadhurst, Henry

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Sinclair Capt John (Forfarshire)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Kitson Sir James

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burt, Thomas

Langley, Batty

Souttar, Robinson

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Steadman, William Charles

Cladwell James

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cameron Sir Charles (Glasgow)

Leng, Sir John

Strachey, Edward

Channing, Francis Allston

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Clark, Dr. G. B.

Lyell, Sir Leonard.

Thomas, Abel (Camarthen, E.

Crombie, John William

M'Ewan, William

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan E.)

Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal)

M'Laren Charles Benjamin

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mather, William

Dewar, Arthur

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

Wallace, Robert

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duckworth James

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wason, Eugene

Dunn, Sir William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Emmott, Alfred

Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merth'r

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudders'd)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Oldroyd, Mark

Yoxall, James Henry

Gold Charles

Paulton, James Mellor

Churdon, Sir W. Brampton

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

TELLERS FOE THE AYES—

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Mr. E. J. C. Morton and

Hazell, Walter

Price, Robert John

Mr. Kearley.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Aird, John

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Faber, George Denison

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lowe, Francis William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Finch, George H.

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Balcarres, Lord

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Macdona, John Cumming

Baldwin, Alfred

Fisher, William Hayes

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maclean, James Mackenzie

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

Flower, Ernest

Maclure, Sir John William

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S-(Hunts

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Bartley, George C. T.

Fry, Lewis

Malcolm, Ian

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

Garfit, William

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B.(Hants)

Gedge, Sydney

Marks, Henry Hananel

Beckett, Ernest William

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Bethell, Commander

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

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Biddulph, Michael

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Bigwood, James

Gilliatt, John Saunders

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Bill, Charles

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Milward, Colonel Victor

Blakiston-Houston, John

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Monckton, Edward Philip

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Monk, Charles James

Bond, Edward

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

Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

Bousfield, William Robert

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Brassey, Albert

Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Graham, Henry Robert

Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

Butcher, John George

Gretton, John

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow)

Gull, Sir Cameron

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

Carlile, William Walter

Gunter Colonel

Myers, William Henry

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Newdigate, Francis Alexand'r

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Nicholson, William Graham

Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hanson, Sir Reginald

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hardy, Laurence

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlingt'n)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

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

Helder, Augustus

Pender, Sir James

Chamberlain, J. Austen, Worc'r

Henderson, Alexander

Penn, John

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Pierpoint, Robert

Charrington, Spencer

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chelsea, Viscount

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

Coddington, Sir William

Hobhouse, Henry

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Houston, R. P.

Purvis, Robert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Howard, Joseph

Pym, C. Guy

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Howell, William Tudor

Rankin, Sir James

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Hozier, Hon. J. Henry C.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

Jackson, Rt. Hn. W. Lawies

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Round, James

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

Curzon, Viscount

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Keswick, William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kimber, Henry

Savory, Sir Joseph

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Denny, Colonel

Labouchere, Henry

Seton-Karr, Henry

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lafone, Alfred

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Doughty, George

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A, Akers-

Llewellyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans)

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

332

333

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

Wrightson, Thomas

Stock, James Henry

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Wyndham, George

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E. (Tauntn)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Strauss, Arthur

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Younger, William

Thornton, Percy M.

Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

Sir William Walrond and

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E.H.(Shef.)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Mr. Anstruther.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That for the remainder of the session Government business do have precedence on Tuesday and Wednesday (except on Wednesdays the 20th and 27th June), and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to all the days of the week.

NEW BILL.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES (ISLE OF MAN).
  Bill to amend the Law with respect to Customs Duties in the Isle of Man, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
  "To amend the Law with respect to Customs Duties in the Isle of Man," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]

  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The Amendment which stands first in my name, as well as some other Amendments in my name, are all closely connected. They are all placed
  334
  on the Paper in connection with the arrangement which, as I stated to the House, had been made with the delegates of the different colonies with regard to the question of appeal. The earlier Amendments are purely verbal, consequential on what is really the only substantial Amendment, that to Clause 74. But as, of course, if the Committee were disinclined to pass the Amendment to Clause 74, these earlier Amendments would be unnecessary, I think it would be convenient that I should take this opportunity of stating our position in the matter. I also think it would be convenient, if there is to be a discussion on the principle-which I rather hope may not be the case-that it should take place on this formal Amendment. I think the question is one of some difficulty and complexity, and, therefore, even at the risk of repetition, I will venture to remind the Committee of what has already passed. The Bill which was sent to us from Australia dealt with the question of appeal in rather a drastic fashion. It practically abolished the ancient appeal to the Privy Council in constitutional cases, except where the public interests of any part of Her Majesty's dominions were concerned. To their proposal the Government, acting as trustees for the Empire, took serious exception. We stated from the first that it would be quite impossible for us to assent to it. We explained that we held it to be our duty to maintain this right of appeal wherever any interests outside Australia were concerned. We stated however, at the same time, that where questions arose which were purely of Australian concern, whatever opinion we might ourselves entertain as to the wisdom of the proposals that were made by the Australian people, we should not think it our duty to interfere or to insist upon any Amendments. We were unable at that time to come to any agreement

  335
  with the delegates who had been appointed by the five federating States. They were in a somewhat exceptional position, because they had at that time only received a special mandate to carry the Bill exactly in the form in which it was passed by the Australian people. They did not feel themselves competent, therefore, to discuss with us any form of amendment. Accordingly Her Majesty's Government introduced a Bill with our own Amendments. On our own responsibility we restored the right of appeal as it had previously existed. But after we had introduced the Bill in that form, and between the First and Second Readings, we had further communications with the delegates from Australia. Those communications, though not confined to the delegates of the eastern States, were chiefly with them, because the delegate from Queensland had already agreed to our proposal. It was the delegates from the four eastern States who still desired either that the original Bill should be passed in its original form or that some arrangement should be come to as to the Amendments we proposed. The result of those communications with the four delegates was that we came to an arrangement. I have observed that that arrangement is frequently spoken of as a compromise. I think that is altogether an inaccurate expression. As I understand it, a compromise is an amicable understanding between parties who have differed, according to which each party gives up something in order to secure unanimity. But in the present instance I should describe our understanding as an arrangement in which neither party gives up anything to which they attach importance, which I think is a more satisfactory state of things. We, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government at any rate, desired only that the right of appeal should be maintained in all cases in which other than Australian interests were concerned, and that was absolutely conceded to us by the four delegates concerned. They on their part, I will not say exclusively, but at all events mainly, desired that certain constitutional questions which might hereafter arise as to the limits inter se of the powers of the States and of the Federal Parliament should be finally decided by the High Court, and that also was secured to them by the agreement at. which we arrived. Having arrived at that agree-
  336
  ment, we had to communicate it to Queensland, and the Queensland delegate and his Government both objected to the arrangement, as they were prepared to go much further in the direction which indeed commended itself to Her Majesty's Government, although we did not think it our duty to force it on the Australian colonies. I wish the Committee to bear in mind the extraordinary difficulty of the negotiations in which I have been engaged. In the first place I have had to deal with five separate interests, not to speak of the interests of Western Australia and New Zealand, which, not being federating colonies, may be put, perhaps, in the second rank as regards this question. I have had to deal with five separate interests represented with five different colonies. The first difficulty was to ascertain the opinion of those five separate colonies. How was I to ascertain it? I was blamed, rather roughly I think, by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for, as he said, going behind the delegates in this matter. am glad to think that they, at any rate, did not take offence at anything which I did; and I think that what has happened since has fully justified my attempt to ascertain from other respectable and influential sources the opinion of the Australian people as well as the opinions of the delegates and the Governments. But if I were to accept the opinions of the delegates as representative of the five Australian colonies, am met with this difficulty—that the Australian delegates themselves agree in stating that they had no credentials for such a purpose; that they came here with a limited mandate. If, however, I try to get the opinions of the Governments who appointed them I am met with this difficulty—that those Governments, for whatever reasons I am totally unable to divine, have refrained from first to last from giving me any official indication of their opinions. Up to the present day I am still without any official communication whatever in regard to the various proposals which have been under consideration. I say, then, that the position has been one necessarily of some difficulty. The agreement to which I have referred removed all difficulty so far as the Imperial Government was concerned. We have got by that agreement everything that we desire. There remains the necessity, if possible, of satisfying in any

  337
  final settlement the whole of the five colonies concerned, and in regard to that our position is really a Ministerial one. We have only to ascertain what the wishes of the Australian colonies are, and when we have ascertained them we have to carry them out. To us it is really of no consequence, so far as those Imperial interests go with which we were chiefly concerned, what the decision of the colonies may be. At the time I last addressed the House the position was this. Four colonies out of the five, by the mouths of their delegates, had approved of the agreement at which we had arrived. Therefore I placed on the Paper Amendments to carry out the decision which, although not unanimous, was at all events the decision of the majority of those concerned. Since then, through the usual channels of information—not by virtue of any official communication from any of the Governments concerned —I have learned that the arrangement to which we came is objected to on two grounds. In the first place, the colonies, perhaps with the exception of South Australia—and when I speak of the colonies I am speaking of the Governments of the colonies—appeared to consider that it would limit the right of appeal from the State Courts more than was done by the original Bill. It appears that there is some difficulty in ascertaining what would have been the exact effect of the original Bill. There is some difference of opinion amongst legal authorities in regard to this matter. Some assert that under the original Bill it would have been open to litigants, even where constitutional questions involving the powers of the States were concerned, at their option either to appeal to the Privy Council or to the High Court. Other authorities, on the contrary, say that in regard to those constitutional questions the appeal would only lie to the High Court, and this would be final. I do not pretend to settle that matter. I only say it is not as clear to me as it might be that the original Bill did allow of such an appeal. But at all events, it is clear to me that the general opinion in Australia at the present time is in favour of such an appeal—is in favour, that is to say, of a possible appeal to the Privy Council in cases which arise in the first instance in the State Courts. The second objection taken was that we had provided no
  338
  appeal should lie from the High Court in such cases, unless the consent of the Governments of the two States or of the State and the Federal Government respectively concerned had been obtained to such an appeal. That appeal would have been by the leave of the Governments concerned who were interested in the settlement of the constitutional question. A serious objection has been taken to that by very distinguished legal authorities in the colonies, and it appears to be supported by the Governments, that it was introducing the executive into judicial questions. That would be a most unfortunate result. As soon as these objections were clearly stated Her Majesty's Government endeavoured to see whether some other changes might not be made which would, as we hoped, secure unanimity, including Queensland as well as the other four colonies, and would satisfy the particular objections that had been taken. We were assisted in our inquiries by the opinion that came to us from Chief Justice Griffiths, in which he suggested certain amendments of the proposed agreement to carry out these objects, and I am glad to say that we have now again, after communication this time with all the five delegates, arrived at a further proposal which does, at any rate, absolutely meet the two objections to which I have referred, and I am not aware of any other objections that have been taken. We propose in the new form of the clause which appears on the White Paper to-day, and which I shall propose at a later stage, that the right of appeal shall be restricted only in a single case—only in the case of a constitutional question arising as to the powers inter se between the States or the States and the Federal Government, and arising in the High Court. We strike out altogether all reference to the State Courts, leaving the state of the law on the question of appeal exactly where it was before, and we deal only with exceptional cases arising in the High Court. If I may express in arithmetical terms my own idea of what has happened it is this. Whereas in the original Bill as it was presented to us by the Australians in nine cases out of ten the right of appeal to the Queen in Council would have been restricted, and whereas by an agreement which we came to before the Second Reading, and before the delegates of the eastern States were

  339
  heard, that right of appeal would have been restricted in perhaps five cases out of ten, now by the new arrangement it will only be restricted in one case out of ten. I do not put that before the Committee as an absolutely accurate statement, but I put it as representing my own view of the changes that have been made. As to one point, however, there can be no doubt whatever, and that is each successive change has been in the direction of the view entertained from the first by Her Majesty's Government. Our rights in the matter lapsed when we got the concession which secured the right of appeal in all cases which were external to purely Australian interests. But our interests in the matter remained because in our conviction it was to the advantage of Australia that it should maintain in the fullest degree this right of appeal, and that they should have thoroughly impartial and authoritative Courts to go to, as Canada can go and as Australia has hitherto gone. One other change has been made, which is also of great importance. We have now, with the consent of the five delegates concerned, substituted the leave of the Court for the leave of the Government. It is now, therefore, a purely judicial affair. In any case, even in a very limited class of cases in which constitutional questions arise—in which purely Australian constitutional questions arise in the High Court— the High Court may give leave to appeal; and, having regard to the unanimous opinion of the highest legal authorities in Australia as to this right of appeal, and apparently to the general conviction on the part of the majority, at any rate, of the legal profession and the majority of the commercial classes, I cannot doubt that in cases of real importance such leave would certainly be given. I have communicated to the whole of the Governments the proposals at which we have arrived. I have also communicated to them the fact that these proposals are recommended unanimously by the delegates in this country, but I have not had up to the present time any official reply from these Governments.
  MR. ASQUITH: When did you communicate with them?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: On Saturday. There has been time for a reply, because one or two Governments have
  340
  communicated, but they have not dealt definitely with this matter. If, however, one may draw a conclusion from other sources, from what has appeared in the newspapers and in reports from Australia, it would seem that the new proposals are likely to give general satisfaction. There is one further remark which I think I ought to make. I owe it to Mr. Dickson to say that while he has joined in recommending this proposal he has stated very fairly that neither he nor I is a lawyer, and that we may as laymen have misapprehended the effect of the proposals. I hope that that is not the case, and I am confirmed I think, in my opinion, as to the effect of these proposals by the stronger and much more valuable opinion of the Attorney General. I think it right to say that Mr. Dickson put forward a caveat, that if it should be found that the effect of the new clause is not as I have stated it he would not feel himself bound by the recommendations he has made. I will only add that I think the Committee will understand that while we rejoice very much that the Australians have voluntarily come so far in what we believe is the direction of their true interests in this matter, we desire nothing but to carry out their wishes, whatever they are. Therefore, if it should happen, as it may— although I have no reason to anticipate it —that in the interval between now and the report stage they should unanimously or by a majority desire any further change, always provided it does not interfere with the Imperial interests already guarded, I shall be prepared to propose such change to the Committee. I am not, therefore, binding myself to an absolutely final arrangement. That is a matter which, in my opinion, rests with the Australian colonies. I only ask the Committee now to pass in the form in which I put them forward the Amendments before the House, believing at all events they will go a long way in the direction of satisfying all the interests concerned.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 14, to leave out from the word 'Notwithstanding,' to the word 'State,' in line 18, both inclusive."—(Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  *MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman has quite reasonably proposed to take the discussion on the new proposal of the Government at this moment, although it comes long before we reach Clause 74. When the right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest, as I understood him, that in this proposal there was really nothing calling for a prolonged discussion, I, for one, am unable to agree with him. Looking at the clause which he now proposes, it seems to me that the position which he takes up is widely different from the position he took up upon the First Reading. I feel all the more encouraged to call the attention of the Committee to this fact, because we are placed in a most extraordinary position by the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. What is that position? The clause which we are now called upon to debate is one which most of us have seen only within the last few hours. It was not on the Blue Paper, for on that Paper there appears a clause which has been printed, and which has been there for upwards of three weeks. Therefore, we have all been entitled to assume that that was the clause which indicated the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and we have been encouraged in that belief because it remained there and was circulated as late as Saturday morning last, notwithstanding the storm of adverse criticism by which it was received by almost every Government in Australia.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I ask him to bear in mind that we have yet had no official criticism from any of the Governments to which he alludes.
  *MR. HALDANE: I know that the right hon. Gentleman himself has rather an affection for newspaper reports and telegrams, and I collected a considerable bundle of opinions and criticisms on this subject which appeared in The Times and other newspapers, as telegraphed from Australia, and which certainly did indicate very great dissatisfaction with the clause as it appeared on the Blue Paper. I believed until a very recent time—for it so happens that I had information in advance—that the clause as it appeared on the Blue Paper was the clause which we were going to discuss. But within the last few hours there has been
  342
  circulated another Paper containing a totally different clause, and one which falls very far short of what the right hon. Gentleman laid down as his standard in the discussion on the First Reading of the Bill. I say at once that I enter upon this discussion with the strong desire that this should not be made in any sense a contentious Bill. We all wish to get it through, and I will simply remind the Committee how most of those hon. Members who are with me regard this Bill as a whole. We felt that, so far as Australia was concerned, it was for the Australians to shape the measure in their own fashion. We felt that with regard to the question of the right of appeal it was an important question, which ought not to have been allowed to rise, and would not have arisen if, two years ago, when this question first came forward, the Government had been a little more in earnest about creating an Imperial Court of Appeal. Had this been done we should probably not have had these difficulties with which we are face to face at this moment. My contention is that the Amendment now brought forward is more objectionable, as affecting Imperial interests and the scope and power of the Privy Council, than the clause as it originally stood. I desire to put it in as simple language as possible. Let me remind the House what the various stages of this matter have been. Clause 74, as it was brought forward by the Delegates, provided that no appeal should be permitted in regard to any question of the interpretation of the Constitution unless that question involved the public interest of Her Majesty's dominions outside Australia. In other words, where the public interest of Her Majesty's dominions outside Australia are concerned it was proposed that there should be an appeal to the Privy Council. My chief complaint against the new clause is that the right hon. Gentleman has dropped out of this question all reference to questions of public interest in Her Majesty's dominions outside Australia, and has substituted a definition which does not cover the same field, and which precludes from the review of the Privy Council a number of questions which may be of very great Imperial moment, and for which no provision is made in the words of the right hon. Gentleman's new clause. The first Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman made was after the

  343
  debate on the Second Reading. In the debate on the First Reading the right hon. Gentleman had laid down his position very plainly. He said on the 14th of May last—
  "What I say is that there is no such unanimity as should make us hesitate in a matter of this vast importance, at all events, to take time, and, for the present at any rate, retain the right of appeal as it now exists."
  Some of us thought that was going too far, but on the 21st of May last he announced for the first time his compromise, and he said—
  "The effect of this understanding will be that Clause 74 will be exactly reversed; that whereas in the original clause appeal was to cease in all cases except where the public interests of some portion of Her Majesty's dominions out-side Australia were concerned, in the clause as we now propose to insert it, an appeal will lie in every case except in these eases in which Australian interests alone are concerned. That, I think, gets rid of practically every one of the difficulties I anticipated when I referred to the original clause in introducing the Bill."
  Now my right hon friend the Member for East Fife, who followed the right hon. Gentleman in that debate, naturally received the right hon. Gentleman's explanation with some reserve, although we were all glad to know that something in the nature of a compromise had been arrived at. But what we have here is not a compromise. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a compromise is a transaction between parties who have differed and in which something is given up by each party in order to secure unanimity. In this case the right hon. Gentleman not only gives up that which is claimed, but he also gives up something which was not asked for. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal gives up now the exception of public interest—which was conceded by the delegates—affecting the Queen's dominions outside Australia, an exception which never was in controversy, and he has introduced a clause excluding this right. Both under the clause which the right hon. Gentleman first proposed, and under the clause which he now proposes, he excludes from the Privy Council important questions which would have been included in the proposals as originally drafted by the delegates. The first proposal of the right hon. Gentleman declared that no question—
  "as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those
  344
  of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of any two or more States shall be capable of final decision except by the High Court, and no appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from any decision of the High Court on any such question unless by the consent of the Executive Government or Governments concerned, to be signified in writing."
  That is the clause which was so fiercely assailed in Australia. In the first place it has been said that there was there an objectionable provision in regard to the introduction of the Executive Governments into matters of judicial concern. I do not wonder that that proposal raised a storm of hostiie criticism in Australia. But there is another point, and it is in regard to the expression "final decision." It was pointed out that this clause applied not only to public controversies between Governments, but that it applied also to private litigation, and that if the clause passed, a private litigant might find himself in this position; he had fought his case and been unsuccessful, and his opponent had taken him to the Privy Council or he had taken his opponent there. There somebody raises the contention that there is a question of the limits, inter se, of the legislative powers of the two Governments and the validity of the Colonial Act may be questioned. In such a case the Privy Council would have been bound to say, under the wording of the clause, "we cannot listen to you, for we are precluded from hearing the case, and we are bound to send it to the High Court." That was felt to be a clause which was altogether intolerable, and it has been made the subject of severe criticism. Now that obnoxious expression "final decision" has been got rid of, I am glad to say, and now we are face to face with a new clause which has appeared on the Paper for the first time to-day.
  "No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question howsoever arising as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, j unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council."
  It is quite true that there is a class of question which was excluded by the original clause of the delegates which this clause permits. For instance, suppose there arises a question under

  345
  the power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government extended by the specific provisions of Clause 51 outside the region of Australia, and outside territorial limits—the question would arise as to whether legislation in the colony would be ultra vires. Now under the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman that would be appealable which could not have been so under the original clause. But this is a very rare case. I have had some experience in these matters in Canada, and during an observation extending over fifteen years I do not know a single instance of such a question arising. I know of an instance arising in the case of one of the Australasian colonies as to a bigamy law which was said to have been passed in such terms as to extend to an offence committed outside the limits of Australia, and the Privy Council held that the effective scope of the statute did not extend outside those limits. But not one question is a hundred which arise will be of this nature, but questions of another class will arise constantly. Let me take a concrete case which arose within my own knowledge with regard to British Columbia. Litigation arose there in reference to the employment of Chinese labour in a colliery. A Bill had been brought before the legislature for the prohibition of female and child labour in mines, and someone moved an amendment to add the words "and Chinamen" to this prohibition. The shareholders, finding that Chinamen were being employed, brought the question before the court, applying for an injunction. When this litigation arose some ingenious person in the case raised the objection that power to legislate for aliens was reserved exclusively to the Dominion Parliament, and that the legislation of British Columbia was ultra vires. The point was one of importance because there was a treaty between Her Majesty and the Emperor of China which gave the most-favoured-nation treatment to Chinese subjects, and there was a question as to whether this was not affected by the legislation alluded to. This was a question affecting the Queen's dominions outside Canada, and the matter came before the Privy Council, and they declared that the legislation was ultra vires, and in that way they got rid of the matter. I will take another illustration. There was a great case about eighteen
  346
  months ago between Ontario and Quebec and the Dominion Government, which arose in regard to the control over the great lakes and the great rivers in Canada. That was a matter in which the Imperial Government were interested, because it was a question in which the rights of the American as well as the Canadian fishermen were involved. It was felt that the matter should not be left in the hands of the provincial Government, having regard to the complications which might arise. The matter came before the Privy Council, and it was ultimately decided that it was not within the power of any Province of Canada to deal with this matter at all. I give these illustrations because they are cases which arose undoubtedly as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers in the Dominion of Canada. I think the Committee will appreciate the reason why I do this. These were cases where the public interest of the Queen's dominions outside Canada were vitally concerned, and in which there was a right of appeal under the Constitution. Such cases may arise in relation to Australia, and in such an emergency there would have been a right of appeal under the Bill which the delegates introduced, but there will be no such appeal under the clause which the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House. That seems to me to be a consideration which, at all events, should entitle us at this stage to ask for a little more time than we have had to consider a clause which hardly one of us saw before a few hours ago, and which now comes before us for discussion practically for the first time. It is quite true that the clause of the right hon. Gentleman has some advantages—for example, it makes it clear that there can be an appeal from the State Court even upon a constitutional question to the Privy Council. I think that was probably not so under the, Bill as it originally stood, but what an extraordinary provision it is. The clause provides that if you have litigation in the State upon a constitutional question you may appeal either to the Privy Council or the High Court. If you appeal to the High Court the decision is to be final unless the High Court gives you leave to appeal to the Privy Council. It is, in other words, a court of final jurisdiction upon this matter. Supposing a litigant takes his case first to the Privy Council and succeeds, his opponent may, in

  347
  another case, raising the same point, take him up to the High Court to get round the difficulty, which he can do because the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman gives him a right of appeal. But that is a totally different appeal to the one in Canada, because there the Supreme Court is not a court of final jurisdiction. As the clause makes the High Court of Australia a court of final jurisdiction, there may well be conflicting decisions between the High Court and the Privy Council. I do not think that is an academic matter. I for one protest against pronouncing an opinion upon this question with only a few hours consideration, and without an opportunity of anything like full discussion, It may be said that these matters are more or less technical; but, after all, what is there in this measure about which there is any controversy except this right of appeal to the Privy Council? I am not one of! those who ever have insisted upon that right. I am quite prepared to say that the views of the delegates are entitled to great weight, and I am prepared to allow the people of Australia to prefer the decision of the Australian Courts upon questions affecting the interpretation of the Constitution. But what I do protest against is the right hon. Gentleman coming here and taking a high constitutional attitude and telling us that the right of appeal was to remain as it stood, and then coming down here with a clause which gives away more than the delegates ever asked for. It seems to me that what we have got here is not a compromise at all. Surely we ought to have a little more time to consider these matters more fully than is possible at the present moment. There are vital questions involved in this Bill which concern not merely the Government of Australia but they affect Imperial interests as well, and we ought to be allowed sufficient time to make up our minds in a satisfactory manner. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has had a most difficult task in negotiating this matter, but I protest against the way in which the right hon. Gentleman is asking Parliament to come to a decision in this matter, just as if the issue was a comparatively simple one.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): I was very glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman urge that this Bill should not
  348
  be treated as a contentious Bill, and I am quite sure it will not be so regarded. At the same time I was a little bewildered by the hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude on this Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that this clause gives the delegates more than they ever asked for—that so far from being a compromise it gives them all they originally asked for and something more. That is the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. HALDANE: I did not say all, but I quite admit that something has been added, although it is very small.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am glad to hear that qualification, although the statement in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was that the clause was not a compromise, and that it gave the delegates all that they asked for and something more. I am satisfied that not only is the view propounded by the hon. and learned Gentleman absolutely novel, but that it is one which will not commend itself to anyone who has studied the matter at all. I would remind the hon. and learned Member that when this Bill, in the form in which it came from Australia, was under consideration in the House the hon. and learned Member suggested that it should be accepted in the form in which it came from Australia. I am not going to occupy the time of the Committee with technical matters, but a reference to the broad features of the Bill will show that the hon. and learned Member's view with regard to the comparative effect of the Amendment before the Committee is really without any substantial foundation. It is not of very much use to appeal in this matter to experience gathered in other fields, because in this Bill we have to deal with enactments of a very peculiar and very special kind. I will ask the Committee to refer to the terms of the Constitution. They confer upon the Parliament of the Commonwealth power to make laws with regard to a great many matters, and I will direct attention to two or three of them, as showing the class of questions which might arise. Under Head 10 power is given to make laws as to fisheries in Australian waters beyond the territorial limits. Head 29 refers to external affairs, and Head 30 to the relations of the Commonwealth with the Islands of

  349
  the Pacific. There are several others which I might mention, but these are sufficient for my purpose. With regard to every one of these heads, questions of very great gravity might arise as to the extent of the powers which have been conferred upon the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Take the question of the power to deal with Australian fisheries beyond territorial limits. The question might arise, what are Australian fisheries not within the territorial limits? What are the powers to be exercised with regard to the persons who may frequent these fisheries? With regard to external affairs it is unnecessary to point out the wide scope that might be attributed to words of that kind, In connection with all these heads questions of very great importance as to the extent of the delegation to be conferred on the Parliament of the Commonwealth might arise. I cannot at all agree with my hon. and learned friend that only in very exceptional cases questions as to the extent of those powers would arise. I venture to say that they would arise in nine cases out of ten. What I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to is this—that the question of what powers have been delegated to the Australian legislatures, whether the legislatures in common or the legislature in each State, may be matter of grave Imperial concern; but how these powers, having been delegated, are to be distributed as between the central and the local legislatures will be almost invariably a matter of Australian concern. It may be of the utmost possible importance to determine accurately what is the extent of the powers delegated under Article 51. But the question whether a certain power is to be exercised by the central legislature or the local legislature is a question of Australian importance and almost entirely of Australian importance. My hon. and learned friend says the Bill as it came from Australia provided that in matters affecting the public interest of some other part of Her Majesty's dominions an appeal would be allowed. That is perfectly true. I do not intend to comment upon the extreme vagueness of such language as "the public interest of some other part of Her Majesty's dominions," but it is language which would introduce uncertainty into a class of cases where certainty is eminently desirable. No one
  350
  would know what was covered by that assumption, but when my hon. and learned friend looks back with regret to these words which appear in the Bill as it came from Australia he forgets altogether that there was an exception engrafted on the prohibition of the right to appeal. The prohibition of the right of appeal extended to all constitutional questions. It was provided by Article 74 as it came from Australia that no appeal on any question affecting the construction of the Constitution would lie except where the public interest of some other part of Her Majesty's dominions was concerned. Now we, by this clause, eliminate altogether the prohibition of appeal on constitutional questions generally, and we confine the prohibition to the one case of conflict as between a State and the Commonwealth or as between two States, as to by which of them the power conferred should be exercised. If the question is whether the power is to be delegated at all, then an appeal would lie subject to leave from Her Majesty. But if the question is not one of delegation, but merely of distribution, and as to whether, the powers having been con-ceiled, they are to be exercised by the central or the local legislature, then there is no appeal from the decision of the High Court, unless the High Court thinks fit for special reasons to certify an appeal. My hon. and learned friend put a case which I confess rather surprised me. He said, and it is the case, that this clause as it now stands leaves absolutely unfettered the right of appeal to the Privy Council. As the Bill stands any litigant may take any point including constitutional questions of this kind straight from the Supreme Court of the State to the Privy Council. There is no doubt about that at all. Then my hon. and learned friend asks what would happen, suppose a litigant takes a point of that kind to the Privy Council and it is decided, and that the same point arises in another case and is taken to the High Court. In that case, of course, the High Court will follow, and would be bound to follow the decision given by the Privy Council.
  MR. HALDANE: Does the Privy Council also follow the High Court?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Certainly not, because it is not usual for the

  351
  Appelate Court to follow the Court below. The very clause which my hon. and learned friend has been criticising pro-vides that, should the High Court think fit to certify that the case is one proper to be heard on appeal, then the case may go to the Privy Council. I do ask the Committee whether a more extraordinary proposition was ever put forward than that, after the Privy Council, to which the High Court was allowed to appeal, had decided a particular point in one way, the High Court should decide the same point in another way and refuse leave to appeal to the Privy Council. I venture to say that a graver observation touching the constitution of a Court never was made. If there were any special circumstances which led the High Court to think that the decision of the Privy Council in the first case was not altogether applicable in the second case, they would of course under those circumstances grant leave to appeal, and the matter would come before the Privy Council. This clause shows that the Privy Council is recognised as the ultimate Appellate Court, altogether in deference to Australian feeling, only for special reasons, and that the High Court is to certify before there can be an appeal. I venture to think that the case quoted by my hon. and learned friend is a perfectly impossible one, and that something in the nature of apology is due to the prospective High Court from him. Then my hon. and learned friend put a very interesting case of legislation with respect to Chinese labour as a case of conflict between a local and central authority in which it would be important that there should be an appeal. I would remind my hon. and learned friend that in the Bill as it came from Australia, it was very far indeed from being clear that there would have been an appeal in such a case. I doubt whether it could have been held that "the public interest of some other part of Her Majesty's dominions was concerned," or that the case would be considered as coming within the exception giving the right of appeal. The case, however, is one of the most exceptional character. I venture to think that we have dealt with nine-tenths of the cases which will arise under the constitution. As to how the powers delegated are to be distributed in Australia the Imperial Government is, as a rule, not concerned. My hon. and learned friend also said that there ought to
  352
  be time to consider the effect of this clause. I recognise the weight of any suggestion from my hon. and learned friend, but I would remind him, and I would remind the Committee, that there is a very strong desire it Australia that there should be no further delay in the prosecution of this measure. I would also remind the Committee that there will be a further opportunity, after this Bill has passed through Committee, of discussing questions of importance on Report.
  MR. HALDANE: I understand that the Australian States have not expressed any opinion on this Amendment. It was only drafted on Saturday and cabled out on Saturday night, and now, on Monday, we are asked to accept it.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I would ask my hon. and learned friend not to forget that there is a very great desire in Australia that this Bill should be passed with reasonable expedition. What that expedition is will be for the Committee to decide. One observation before I sit down. I much regret that my hon. and learned friend seems to be under the impression that this Amendment put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman introduces an alternative appeal to the Privy Council or the High Court.
  MR. HALDANE: That was in the last edition but one.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: It is embodied in this Amendment, and was introduced in the last Amendment as well.
  MR. HALDANE: We did not know what it was.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: That is not the point. The point is that my hon. and learned friend says that an alternative appeal is introduced, and he drew a ghastly picture of what might result from a litigant going from one Court to another. But my hon. and learned friend must remember that the Bill as it came from Australia provided for that alternative appeal.
  MR. HALDANE: I said so, because there was an appeal in all cases, except constitutional cases, in the Bill as it came

  353
  from Australia. But you have now taken away the right of the Privy Council to give leave to appeal, and you make the High Court the supreme court in constitutional questions.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I do not think that my hon. and learned friend appreciates my point. He put it that the evil of an alternative appeal was the result of something done by my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies. The alternative appeal was in the Bill as it came from Australia. Under that Bill a litigant might go from the Supreme Court of the State straight to the Privy Council on any constitutional question, or instead of going to the Privy Council might go straight to the High Court, but there was this most objectionable state of things under that provision, that unless the matter fell within the exception namely as a constitutional matter affecting public grounds, the decision of the High Court was absolutely final. Under the Bill as it came from Australia it might well have been said that the High Court and the Privy Council were courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and that the High Court had leave to go its own way. So far from having introduced that evil, what my hon. friend has done as the result of negotiations has been to remove all objectionable results from it, because it is now provided that the High Court may for special reasons grant leave to appeal even in the very limited class of cases in which the decision of the High Court is promulgated as one not the subject of appeal to the Privy Council. I do not claim to have converted my hon. and learned friend on this subject, but I hope I have satisfied the Committee that the sacrifice of these words which he so much laments, "unless the public interest in some other part of Her Majesty's dominions is concerned," is not one to be regretted at all. We have reserved the right of appeal in nine-tenths of the cases which may arise, and all we have done is to provide for no appeal except by special leave in a very limited class of cases—in which 999 out of every 1,000 would not be affected—relating to purely Australian matters.
  SIR R. T. REID: I think it is much to be regretted in regard to this debate that it should have ever
  354
  been necessary. We recognise the difficulties the Colonial Secretary has had to contend with, but the more we think over the matter the more we must regret that it was thought necessary in any degree to interfere with the measure as it was sent from Australia. Let us see for a single moment how the matter stands. There was very great difficulty in the Australian colonies in coming to a concordance upon terms. A long time was lost and a great deal of labour and ingenuity was spent, and at last the colonies came to an agreement. The result of that agreement was sent over to this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies unfortunately considered that it was necessary to make an alteration with regard to one subject, and that was the matter of appeal to the Privy Council. With the aid of the most expert legal advice, with the goodwill and assistance of the delegates from Australia, we have proceeded from one suggestion to a second, and then to a third, and at last we have to-day a still further alteration proposed to us, without being able to claim the assent of the Australian Governments or the Australian colonies to anything except what was originally proposed. It has been considered apparently by the legal advisers of the Government that some alteration was necessary in order to preserve the right of appeal to the Privy Council. I want the Committee to consider for a moment what is the real importance of appeal to the Privy Council. I think it is a very desirable thing to retain if we can, but I think it ought never to be imposed on the colonies, unless they wished it. I do not attach any great Imperial or constitutional importance to the preservation of the right of appeal by private individuals in matters of private importance to them. It is only when matters of public importance arise that any significance attaches to the right of appeal. What is the difference between the present proposals of the Government and the proposals made in the original Bill as sent over from Australia? According to the original Bill, in every private case — and these would be the great majority—unless a question as to the interpretation of the constitution arose, the right of appeal was preserved. That is to say, that the right of appeal was proposed by the Australians themselves to be reserved in eighteen out of twenty, and even ninety-nine out

  355
  of every hundred cases in any way likely to come over to this country, and the only restriction proposed upon the right of appeal was when questions of constitutional interpretation arose under the Act, which must be comparatively rare. But it was thought by the Australians that the right of finally deciding the interpretation of their own Constitution should rest upon themselves. They also made the concession that if the public interest of any other part of Her Majesty's dominions was involved there might be the right of appeal. That was to be a question for the Privy Council to deter-mine. I do not at all doubt that strong legal advice was pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman by very eminent authorities, but it seems to me that the restriction on the right of appeal as originally proposed by the Australians themselves must only affect and could only apply in a few cases. However, unfortunately, the view of the Government was otherwise, and they commenced to make alterations. As the Committee is aware, we have had not much notice of the last alteration, but we will have an opportunity of discussing and considering it again on the Report stage. From the time when the original proposals were first made to the present there has been nothing but difference—friendly and respectful I quite admit—between the Government on the one side and one section or another of Australian opinion on the other. There has been, unfortunately, differences between the Australian colonies themselves in regard to what, after all, are very small matters in comparison with the enormous interests dealt with by this Bill. I would wish to point out to the Committee how comparatively small the real difference is between what was originally proposed in the Australian Bill and what is now suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. There was no restriction at all under the Australian Bill except in cases of constitutional interpretation, and even then there was no restriction if the public interest in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions was concerned. What have we got instead of that? I think myself that the difference is so small as not to justify all the trouble that has been taken and the risk which has been run of losing the Bill. The proposal now is that on questions of constitutional interpretation there shall be no appeal unless the High Court
  356
  certifies an appeal. That is a difference which it seems to the ought not to occasion any difficulty. If I were an Australian I would very likely consider it a very proper clause; but I think it is a great pity that it was ever proposed here. The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not now know whether the Australian Governments are in favour of his proposal, and that he may learn between now and Report that some other scheme will be satisfactory to them, in which case he says— and most wisely says—that he will instantly lay it before the House provided it docs not interfere with his views as to the duty of the Imperial Government as trustees for the whole Empire. I most heartily hope that some proposal will be made—nothing could be more eminently satisfactory, from my point of view, than that some proposal should be made—to put an end to this difference—a difference which I think is very trifling—on a very important Bill, and which has given a great deal more trouble than it need have done. But if not, I think the Australian colonies would be very well advised if they accepted the proposal of the light hon. Gentleman. It will do no harm, I believe, to their Constitution, and certainly it contains no element of injustice or unfairness. But if they do not do so, and continue to express, what exists to a considerable extent in Australia, a decided preference for the form of the Bill to which they all agreed in the first instance, I would express the hope that the Government even now, after having done their best according to their own view of their duty, will revert to the Australian view, which I think is perfectly harmless and cannot in any degree inter-fore with Imperial interests.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The right hon. the Colonial Secretary said he hoped that any discussion that took place this evening would be on this particular clause, but as my criticism will rather point to a suggestion of a slight increase in the legislative power given in the clause, I hope I shall not be out of order in making some general remarks on the subject. I do not wish to go into the question of the delegation or distribution of powers. I followed the difficulties and the subtle-tics of the hon. and learned Member for East Lothian, and was painfully convinced

  357
  by the arguments of the Attorney General that his fears were unfounded. I, however, pass from that, and will venture, in spite of all that has been said as to the propriety of our leaving the matter entirely to the Australians, to express, what I hope is not improper, some interest in the working of this Constitution as we expect it to develop in the future history of the colonies. The Appeal clause in the Bill originally submitted by the colonies to the Government was extremely difficult to allow in the form in which it was drawn, because it was so complicated and obscure that it was likely to lead to bickering and difficulty between the home Government and the colonies. I preferred the clause which was submitted to us shortly after the Bill was introduced, though it appeared to me to have some defects which, if it were before us now, I should have pointed out as a source of danger. The present clause seems to me to confine the matters on which there is to be no review of the Privy Council to very distinct and reasonable limits, and I only regret that the Government departed from what I still think was a counsel of perfection when they first presented the Bill to the House—the retention of the right of appeal as it exists, I believe, for the Dominion of Canada. I wish to impress on this House that we are throwing upon this High Court the decision without review of questions which are very likely to impair its character and its utility in the Australian colonies. The questions that will come before it are questions as to the distribution of power between the Federal Government and the States, and anyone who has followed the history of the Supreme Court in America must know that these are the questions which have most tried the firmness, and have even to some extent impaired the character, of that Court. The cases which will come before the High Court under this clause without doubt will be cases in which the Federal Legislature or the Executive will be alleged to have exceeded its powers as against some one of the States; and, therefore, the issue will be to some extent a political issue. They are the more likely, to arise because it must be remembered that the Australian colonies are not going into this federation from any external pressure, but of their own initiative, and because they believe that their voice will
  358
  sound with greater force and volume in the affairs of the Empire as a Commonwealth than as separate colonies. The cases which will come before the High Court will be cases in which the Legislature or the Executive of the Commonwealth will be one of the litigants, and a State or States will be the other. But it must be borne in mind that the appointment of the judges of the High Court will rest with the Executive of the Commonwealth; and there is no limit to the number constituting the High Court. Thus it is conceivable that when some great political issue as to the federal power is before the Court, or is likely to come before it, it may happen—as I believe it has happened in the United States—that the members of the Court would be gradually increased or diminished according to the wish of the Executive, so that a particular decision or course of policy of a certain character may be determined and arrived at in a certain way. This consideration points to the desirableness of securing the High Court from any possible imputation on its character by granting an appeal to the Privy Council; and if this were done no conceivable motive or reason for affecting the composition of the Court could arise. Though it seems paradoxical to say so, the very fact that the decisions were subject to appeal, and were not to be final, would, I believe, increase the finality of their character—that is to say, they would be accepted without hesitation because they would be above suspicion, inasmuch as the ultimate decision would lie with the Privy Council. I wish it were possible to go back to the original decision of the Government to retain the right of appeal in all cases; but as this is no longer possible I venture to suggest that the Federal Legislature should have power, without an amendment of the Constitution, to restore the right of appeal in those political and constitutional cases which were defined in the amending clause. If, after a term of years, it is found that the character of the High Court is suffering, it might well be that the Commonwealth Parliament might desire to restore the right of appeal to the Privy Council, but it could not do so without the very cumbersome process of amending the Constitution. If, however, the delegates were agreed on that subject a few amending words would give the Commonwealth Parliament the power I suggest. That would be of the greatest ad-

  359
  vantage. I know that it is risky to prophesy regarding the working of a Constitution, because no Constitution ever worked out as its authors or students ever expected; but I think that my suggestion would be an assistance in the working out of the Australian Constitution, and might be found useful for preventing any possible diminution in the respect which we all hope will be granted to the High Court of the Commonwealth. I do not think that in making this suggestion I can be accused of giving any cause of offence. It seems to me not to be friendly or hardly altogether respectful to the colonies to say, "Take your Constitution if you want it, so long as it does not interfere with Imperial concerns, and make the best of it." We are all interested in the character and conditions of this Australian Constitution; and we are all desirous to see the stones of the fabric laid on the surest foundation, and to promote the ultimate prosperity of these great colonies in which we are so much concerned; and it is for that reason I have ventured to make the suggestion.
  *MR. ASQUITH: I think the Committee will realise that we are approaching the consideration of a question of the highest importance under conditions of grave embarrassment. We are, on both sides of the House, I believe, equally impressed with the desire to put no obstacle of any kind in the way of the speedy attainment by our Australian fellow-subjects of a scheme of federation, but I think we might be well advised in the circumstances of the case in asking you, Sir, to report progress and to ask leave to sit again. The House has heard the speech of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Haddingtonshire and the reply of the Attorney General. My hon. and learned friend is of opinion that the clause in the form it has at present assumed does not safeguard the interests of the rest of the Empire as distinguished from Australia with the same clearness and efficiency as the clause which came from Australia The Attorney General is of a different opinion. Again, my hon. and learned friend contends that you may have under this clause two irreconcilable decisions, one by the Privy Council and the other by the High Court in Australia, in reference to the same subject matter in the same State. The Attorney General thinks, I do not know
  360
  upon what ground, that the High Court would be bound to defer to the Privy Council. I do not wish to pronounce any opinion upon either of these contentions, but when we are asked to pass a clause which did not appear in print until four o'clock this afternoon, and in regard to the interpretation of which these high authorities are in complete antagonism, it is surely placing a very great tax upon the confidence of the House. Even if we had been considering a Private Bill, and not a Constitution, we should have had an opportunity of careful deliberation and of arriving at an opinion which would then be, possibly, of some value. I hope I shall not be accused by anyone of wishing to delay the passage of this Bill or of disrespect either to the Imperial Government or the delegates who have been concerned in these negotiations if I refer to the history of this clause as not creditable to our way of doing business. What does it consist of? The Bill in its original shape, as it was brought from Australia, was submitted to the whole of the Australian people, after prolonged deliberations in their various Legislatures. The Imperial Government, as we now know, took no effective means of conveying to the Australian people what, a moment after the Bill arrived here, they discovered to be a matter of Imperial concern and a real danger to the unity of the Empire. The Australian people having passed the Bill in the shape in which it was passed without any warning whatsoever that apprehensions of that kind had been or were about to be entertained upon this side of the water, the delegates came over here with a restricted mandate, having no power to do anything, as it appeared, but to agree to pass the Bill in the form in which it was assented to by the Australian people. That is the first stage of the matter. Then we come to the First Beading of the Bill in this House, when the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary devoted a very large part of his speech to showing that the Australian delegates were not authentic exponents of the opinion of Australia, that that opinion could be better collected from other sources, which he specified, and that that opinion was hostile to the clause as it was passed upon referendum to the Australian people, and was in favour of an unrestricted right of appeal. The Bill as it was presented to

  361
  this House on the First Reading gave an absolutely unrestricted right of appeal. That was the second stage. A week later came the Second Reading, when the matter assumed a third and totally different aspect. The delegates, who had had a restricted mandate which did not authorise them to alter a single comma in the Bill, appear to have agreed with the right hon. Gentleman to a form of clause which was totally inconsistent with the position taken up by him on the First Reading of the Bill, and imposed on the right of appeal those very restrictions which he had declared to be fatal or dangerous to the unity of the Empire or to the interests of the Empire. The House will remember the speech the right hon. Gentleman delivered.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I never said that the restrictions on the right of appeal in purely Australian cases would affect the interests of the Empire, and it is to that we have now absolutely confined this Bill.
  *MR. ASQUITH: My argument is, of course, directed to Clause 74, which never did anything at all to restrict the right of appeal except in relation to constitutional questions. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the general right of appeal has always been unimpaired. That was the third phase. I spoke upon that occasion, and I welcomed the understanding which had been arrived at between the right hon. Gentleman and the delegates, because I thought that far too much fuss had been made over this business, and if any arrangement was come to the House might readily assent to it. Now we come to the fourth stage in the history of this transaction. The clause which represented, I will not call it the compromise, but the arrangement come to between the light hon. Gentleman and the unauthorised delegates at the time of the Second Reading, which had been on the Paper for three weeks, and which had been the subject of comment and discussion not only in Australia but in this country, completely disappeared as late as Saturday morning last; and we have had put before us this afternoon, without any notice, a clause containing an entirely different proposition. I think it is a distinct improvement, but it is an entirely new proposition, and we have never had an
  362
  opportunity of considering it. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that on Saturday, though he had the knowledge that the delegates had absolutely no authority to assent to this clause, he had telegraphed to the Australian Governments to know whether they had assented to it, and at this moment he is entirely without information from any one of those Governments, who alone are in a position to say whether this clause is contrary to the opinion of Australia or not. For the House, in such conditions, to seriously discuss in a Bill like this a clause of such vital importance is entirely without precedent, and if a precedent of this kind is to be made it ought not to be made without a protest in the House itself. When we get to the report stage it may turn out that the Australian Governments do not approve of the action of the delegates, and we may have put before us a fifth and different proposal. I do think that the House has hardly been treated with the respect to which it is entitled in a matter of this gravity. It would have been the easiest thing in the world, if the Colonial Secretary only made this arrangement as late as Saturday last, to have deferred the Committee on this Bill for a few days, until we had an opportunity of knowing what the opinion of Australia was, and also some opportunity of considering ourselves these difficult and legal considerations. For my part I entirely decline at this stage to commit myself to the clause as it stands. I claim for myself, and I think every Member of the House is entitled to it, complete freedom, at a later stage, to consider it upon its merits. I do not think that we should be doing our duty if we allowed this occasion to pass without making this protest against a proceeding which I think is entirely without precedent.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I sympathise very much with a great deal of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to a certain inconvenience attending the proceedings with regard to this Bill, and I quite agree with him that the circumstances are entirely unprecedented. I quite agree with him also that if we were dealing with a Bill of our own, and English Bill, even a Private Bill, we could not think for a moment of pressing for a conclusion this afternoon, but would readily

  363
  accept a suggestion coming from any quarter of the House for a further postponement. I admit all that. But how the right hon. Gentleman, who knows the circumstances of this case, and knows exactly what are the difficulties with which I have had to deal, can accuse me of want of respect to the House because I have adopted the course I have taken, I cannot possibly conceive. I have taken this course simply because I have been requested to do so by the Australian delegates. To the right hon. Gentleman that may b an insufficient authority, but for those who again and again in these proceedings have called upon us not to flout the opinion of the whole of the Australian people, not to flout their representatives, not to insult them by suggesting amendments to their Bill, to say to us that no attention whatever should have been paid to the unanimous request of the Australian delegates, even at this late period, seems to me a very inconsistent argument.
  *MR. ASQUITH: What I said was that surely the House of Commons is entitled to have a few days to consider the proposal.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I entirely agree that if the House of Commons desires a postponement they must have it. Nobody would think of rejecting anything like a general desire of the House of Commons, or a desire expressed by the leaders of the Opposition, in regard to such a matter. But, of course, in that case they will understand that they are taking upon themselves the responsibility of delaying the measure. Whether that in itself is a serious matter or not is for them to consider. We press it, not because we have the slightest interest as a Government in pressing it, but because we thought it was our duty to put before the Committee the wishes of the Australian delegates in the matter. Let me say that I should not, perhaps, have made myself the channel for the expression of that wish if I had not been under the impression, which nothing the right hon. Gentleman has said has removed, that it was the general desire of the House to treat this Bill as chiefly an Australian matter. If the House proposes now to adopt a different view with regard to it, why, of course, I admit that the complication of this particular question and
  364
  the complication of the whole Bill justifies a much longer delay than we have thought of. I was certainly under the impression that, if I could produce to the House primâ facie evidence that an arrangement had been arrived at which on its merits we could approve and which had every prospect of commending itself, not merely to a portion of the Australian colonies, but to the Australian colonies as a whole, in that case we should have the assent of the House for taking the present step. I have to acknowledge the spirit in which the matter has been dealt with by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries, but still I do venture to differ from him, because he expressed a desire that even at this late stage we should accept the original Bill as presented to us by Australia.
  SIR R. T. REID: If you cannot get an agreement out of them.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope we have got an agreement otherwise. But he will permit me to say that in my judgment if we were now to go back to the original Bill it would be the most unsatisfactory course that we could possibly take, that it would be the course which would meet with the most resistance in Australia. I think the House will easily see that a matter which even in our short discussions has proved to be highly technical is not one which can be considered to have been before the minds of all the Australian people when they passed the referendum on the principle of the Bill. Now that it has been discussed, it must be evident to every one that there is a very large and growing opinion in favour of retaining an unrestricted right of appeal. I own that my conviction has always been that the Australian people never intended the Bill to be taken or left by this House, to be swallowed whole or to be rejected, and that there was no alternative for our consideration. On the contrary, everything that I have heard leads me to believe that it was supposed we would give our best consideration to the Bill, and that if we found in it anything that we thought to be of sufficient importance to merit reconsideration we should not hesitate to put our views before the Australian people; and, as far as I can gather, I believe our efforts in that direction have been thoroughly

  365
  appreciated. The hon. and learned Gentleman said something about the possibility of exciting displeasure. I have not seen a trace of displeasure. On the contrary, there is a thorough appreciation of the spirit in which we have hitherto dealt with the matter. Our main object has been so to pass this Bill finally as to secure the practically unanimous assent of the Australian Parliaments. The recent alterations, and, as I have said, the first alteration that was proposed, gave us all that we thought it necessary to insist upon. These subsequent alterations are suggestions that have come to us from Australia, and I am not at all ashamed of proposing them again and again. I am not at all touched by the irony of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He talked about a fourth proposal in a few weeks, and said there may be a fifth. [Mr. ASQUITH dissented.] Well, he commented upon it in what I understood was a spirit of deprecation.
  MR. ASQUITH: Only as an argument for deliberation.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not deny the possibility, and I shall not be in the least ashamed of coming again with a fifth or a sixth suggestion if it is made to me from Australia. If I have reason to believe that other alterations will still further recommend this Bill as a whole to the Australian people, it will be my duty to submit them, even one after another, to the House. As regards time for deliberation, I hope hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will see fit to hasten proceedings by allowing this stage, at all events, to pass practically unquestioned. We shall be prepared to allow time for further deliberation on the Report stage, which we will postpone to a date which will be convenient to gentlemen opposite. The proposal to extend the powers of the Federal Parliament made by the hon. Member for the Oxford University is one with which I entirely agree. The Federal Parliament under the Constitution will have power to legislate for limiting the right of appeal, although any legislation of the kind will have to be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure. My hon. friend says we might still further enlarge the legislative capacity of the Federal Parliament by allowing them to extend the right of appeal as well as to limit it. Upon that point, as
  366
  I have said, I agree with him; but at the same time I should not like to introduce the alteration at this stage, or without knowing whether such an increase of legislative power would be likely to be in consonance with the wishes of the Australian Governments and people. But I will take care, as far as I can, to make myself acquainted with the views of the delegates, at all events, on the subject, and if I should find they have no objection I should be very glad to introduce the change on the Report stage. I think there is only one other word I need say. I disagree from the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, and still more from the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire, as to the view they take of the respective effects of the original Bill and of the Bill as it will stand when we have amended it. The hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire actually puts forward the view that our Amendment restricts the right of appeal more than the original Bill. He says that upon a hasty review of the clause as now presented. Let me point out that the whole of his argument applies to the previous proposed Amendment as well as to the Amendment on the Blue Paper, and although it has been before the people of Australia for the last three months, not a single word was heard from anyone to justify that view. The hon. and learned Gentleman, as far as I know, stands absolutely and entirely alone. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries did not go so far, but he did consider that the original Bill made a slight limitation and restriction of the right of appeal. That is absolutely contrary to the view taken unanimously by the leading judicial authorities in Australia. Whether it is right or not to make the alteration is another matter. When I am told that the Amendments which we have now made do not affect that restriction, I think I can best answer that by saying that by those Amendments we have placed the question of appeal, with one exception, in precisely the same condition in Australia as it is in Canada. The hon. and learned Gentleman approves of the condition of things with regard to appeal in Canada. Let me point out that under the new Amendments we shall be acting in precisely the same way in Australia as in Canada, except that in the limited number of cases where constitutional questions are tried in the High Court

  367
  leave to appeal will be given in the case of Australia by the High Court, whereas in the case of Canada leave to appeal is given by the Privy Council. That is the only difference. Having brought the right of appeal in Australia so completely or nearly in accord with the right of appeal in Canada, I think we have secured a very great result, and I am only glad to find that in doing so we have the support apparently of the Australian people.
  MR. COURTNEY: I do not think my right hon. friend has treated the House with any discourtesy, but he had a matter of the most difficult character to deal with. Nor do I think the House of Commons is at all discredited by the way in which this business has been conducted. I think that in this matter we should defer entirely to Australian opinion in all matters which do not touch the interests of the Empire at large. But I urge my right hon. friend to consider whether it would not be better to assent to report progress at this stage, so that we may have some time to consider the exact meaning of this Amendment which we have seen to-day for the first time.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to say a few words, not on the main question of the merits of the proposed clause, but on another point. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed a very strong opinion to the Committee. He has said that the Government will postpone for a short time further the consideration of the Bill at this stage, if the Committee desire; but he has referred to some evils—unknown evils to us—that would arise, and has implied that it would be a great disappointment and calamity if some short prorogation were allowed. I do not understand what the meaning of that may be. I remember it was on the 14th May that the Bill was read a second time, and the stage which really became the critical stage—for there was no opposition at the Second Reading—was postponed for some time. Considerable surprise was felt at the length of the interval which the right hon. Gentleman allowed, because there was nothing in the merits of the case, in the facts themselves, which made so long an interval necessary. But now, on the morning of our consenting to consider the Bill, we have this new clause put before
  368
  us, and we are told that it is the result of an agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and the delegates, but neither the delegates nor the Minister know what the feeling of Australia is and what the opinion of the Australian Governments is. That is prima facie a very strong case for postponing the consideration of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman adopts a tone which is, I think, entirely satisfactory to the House, when he says that, subject of course to a due regard for our interests, his great desire is to do whatever the Australian people wish—that he will change this clause again and again if he finds that it will so better suit the wishes of the Australian people. That we understand and appreciate, but that is another reason for delay. We do not know what the feeling of the Australian people is. The whole of the arguments appear to me to be in favour of some further delay—a short delay it may be—not only for our convenience, that we may prepare speeches and elaborate arguments, and for the dignity and propriety of the proceedings of this House, but for the sake of our making a good job of this matter when we undertake it. If we claim to be desirous of doing what the Australian people wish, we ought, first of all, to know what they desire. For all these reasons a short delay would not appear to be out of the question, and I am rather surprised that the Government have not themselves proposed it. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman was almost severe in his declaration of the great gravity and responsibility which would rest upon us if we invited this delay, and consequently I hesitate to put what is my strong opinion into the form of an actual request.
  *MR. MACLEAN: I certainly do not desire to say a word in disparagement of the skill and patience shown by the right hon. Gentleman in managing the delicate negotiations in reference to this Bill, but I think the whole drift of the debate to-night has been in favour of delay, and there does not seem to be very much weight in the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman against delay. The right hon. Gentleman has said he wanted to do all he could to meet the wishes of the Australian delegates. But what difference would a short delay make, seeing that it is in order to ascertain the

  369
  opinion of those speaking for Australia? I am quite sure that after such a delay the debate on the Bill could be concluded in half an hour. Everybody in England is only too anxious that this Bill should be passed and to do anything to promote the happiness and prosperity of the people in Australia. When it was first brought forward it was with every prospect of it being passed, and, considering the splendid spirit shown by the colonists in South Africa, the people in this country should have been only too ready to show their appreciation. The Australian delegates came over boasting, as they had a right to boast, that they were the representatives of the people and Parliaments of Australia—of all the constituted authorities of Australia. Every one of them agreed as to the Bill that it ought to be passed by the House. The Colonial Secretary took up a position of complete antagonism to the measure. It was a matter for regret that the Colonial Secretary, instead of accepting the opinions of the constituted authorities of Australia, had endeavoured to obtain an opinion in Australia in favour of himself. He had adopted all the arts peculiar to the political agitator. We were told that this was the one last link in the Imperial union of the whole Empire—that it was the first step towards Imperial Federation. Anyone who had given any serious thought to the question of Imperial federation among the scattered members of the Empire of Great Britain must know that it is a perfect chimera, and that there is no colony in the Empire which to-morrow would accept the authority of any federated Assembly sitting in London to impose on them any control or any taxation whatever. The great aim of the people of Australia has been to break away from the last vestige and relic of the ill-omened domination of Downing Street in our Colonial Empire.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that the discussion is limited to the Amendment before the Committee.
  *MR. MACLEAN: Perhaps I may be permitted to point out why the Australian delegates protested against the scheme of Her Majesty's Government, however it might be modified. It was that they did not think it was one suited to the genius
  370
  of the Australian people, and they used those eloquent and manly words which I think are strictly appropriate—
  "The delegates reflect with pride that there are sentiments which will constitute eternal 'links of empire,' but are quite unable to understand how there can ever be the least hope that we can merely by insuring uniform interpretation of the law throughout the Empire, facilitate that unity of action for the common interests which will lead to a real federation of the Empire. The 'unity of action' and the uniform 'interpretation of the law' seem to them wholly unrelated and certain to remain so. The consciousness of kinship, the consciousness of common blood, and a consciousness of duty, the pride of their race and history, these are the links of empire, bonds which attach, not bonds which chafe."
  These are the sentiments which have inspired the people of Australia, and I think we may rely more upon them, and feel that in the moment of emergency or danger the Australians will come to our side animated by the common sentiments of race, religion and language, by common sympathies, and by common traditions.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should not oppose a motion for the adjournment proposed from the opposite side with the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I confess that, although he does not venture to make the request, I have a difficulty in distinguishing between a formal request and the language in which he conveyed his opinion on the matter.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was frightened out of it by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not aware I was so terrible in your opinion. I understand it is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that we should not proceed further, although I very much regret that it should be his opinion. I do not feel justified in offering any opposition to reporting progress, and in that case I would suggest that we continue the discussion on Thursday next.
  Committee report Progress, to sit again upon Thursday.

  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.].
  Order for Third Reading Read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON, who was very indistinctly heard in the Reporters' Gallery, was understood to explain that the object of the motion standing on the Paper in his name was to remove a very great defect in the Bill, and to make the measure a real and substantial advance in regard to the remedying of a grievance which had been recognised in the assessment of ecclesiastical buildings in Scotland. During the discussion at the Second Reading stage it was shown that the Bill was as badly drafted as could possibly be conceived, but the measure was read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee. That Standing Committee sat for only a single day, and was very sparsely attended. Although the Bill required certain amendments in matters of detail in order to explain what it really meant, and although various Amendments were moved by supporters of the Government with the object of making the measure more clear, the Lord Advocate, acting upon a very obvious system of Parliamentary tactics, refused to amend a single word of the Bill, the measure being reported without amendment to the House, thus escaping a discussion on Report. The hon. Member disclaimed any attempt to recommit the Bill for the purpose of making minor or verbal Amendments, but he desired its recommittal for the insertion of an Amendment which would have the effect of making the new power proposed in the Bill a reality instead of a wham. He was not alone in this desire, as no fewer than four Members of the Standing Committee, three of whom were supporters of the Government, had Amendments to the same effect before the Committee, but on a division were defeated, although of the Scotch Members present there were a majority in favour of the alteration. The clause he desired to have inserted was really the handiwork of the hon. Member for Glasgow University, who brought this Bill in many years ago as embodying the wish of; the Church of Scotland in the matter, and the Bill then contained this very clause word for word. He therefore hoped to have the hon. Member's sup- port to the proposal that the Bill be re-
  372
  committed in respect of a new clause, which motion he now begged to move.
  MR. CALDWELL: I rise for the purpose of seconding the motion. Although I am one of those who vote in favour of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of Scot- land, yet I am one of those who are always prepared favourably to consider any proposal for the removal of any real grievance of the Church so long as that State connection exists. With regard to this Bill, I am surprised that the Church has brought in a Bill which introduces a principle entirely antagonistic to the principle of justice for which the Church has all along contended. In the first place, it has been strongly objected to that the feuars should be called upon to pay any part whatever of the expense of providing church accommodation and of the manse for the clergyman. I cannot conceive any reason of principle why these feuars of £50 a year should be exempted from the obligation attaching to the land of paying their proportion for the church accommodation in the parish. The parish church has to be erected for the accommodation of the parishioners whoever they may be, and if the population increases owing to the building of parishioners in the parish the parish church has to be correspondingly enlarged. The parish churches in Scotland have to be made sufficient in size to accommodate the parishioners without regard to dissent in the parish. Therefore, when you are dealing with the building of a parish church, you are dealing with a church which the law prescribes should be built in every parish for the accommodation of every parishioner in that parish. Obviously, therefore, what can be more just and reasonable, when the population of a parish increases, than that those persons for whose benefit public accommodation is required to be provided should bear their proportionate share of the cost of providing that accommodation? It is no argument to say that the feuars do not use the accommodation. If a public park is provided, it is no answer to say, "I do not go to the public park, and therefore should not be assessed." The park is provided for you whether you use it or not. In the same way, the parish church, be it right or be it wrong, is provided for you whether you go or not. This burden is one of the obliga-

  373
  tions on the land, and it is a just burden so long as we recognise the present system of State establishment and the obligation of the State to provide accommodation in the parish church whether the parishioners attend or not. That being so, why is this Bill brought in? It is not because the present law is unjust in principle. The law is perfectly just in principle, assuming the State connection to exist. The Bill is brought in because a great grievance has been alleged on the part of dissenters. They say, "We are providing church accommodation for ourselves, and why should we have to help provide for the parish church?" The same answer could be made by a man who sends his children to a private school. Why should he pay rates for the public schools? The reply to that argument is simply "There is the church and there is the accommodation provided for you. If you do not make use of that accommodation, or if you provide for private worship for yourselves, that is a matter for your own concern." The moment you deviate from that principle you get into difficulty so far as the Church is concerned. If it is not just that the dissenter should provide his fair share of the accommodation in the parish church, it is equally not just that he should have to pay any part of the minister's stipend in respect of the public worship in that church. Once you deviate from a principle of this kind you cannot stop. The Government have always maintained the justice of the principle of this assessment, and until you are able to deal with the subject comprehensively, and abolish the rate altogether, levying the burden of providing parish church accommodation in some other way, it would be much better to leave the incidence of taxation as it stands at present. What is the principle here as regards the first clause of the Bill? As the law stands at present the valuation is made upon the real rent. But there is an old valuation which has been in operation in some parishes which the House of Lords has decided not to be legally enforcible. According to a decision of the House of Lords about eighty years ago, the assessment must be based upon the real rent of the parish. The result is that every man will pay according to the valuation of his house, according to whatever is his value in the parish. That is the present law. At one
  374
  time there was an old valuation in the parish; that is to say, 200 or 300 years ago the proprietor of land in a parish got his valuation fixed. But obviously such a valuation has no relation to the existing value of his land. Suppose since then minerals have been found in the land. A man who stands perhaps at a valuation of £300 a year may at present be drawing a revenue of £60,000 a year from that land, and yet be assessed at only the valued rent as it was made 200 or 300 years ago, and which has no relation whatever to the existing value. The result of this proposal will be that the men with the large incomes in the parish will be paying very small sums. That will be the effect of this provision in many parishes. No hon. Member would dare to propose in this House to make the old valuation compulsory. I do not believe the Lord Advocate would bring in such a measure, and if he did I do not think a single hon. Member on the opposite side would support him. This Parliament would never declare that it would take as the basis of an assessment the valuation fixed 200 or 300 years ago. The proposal of this Bill is that two-thirds in value may impose upon the other one-third this most unjust valuation. It is unjust that any majority should have it in their power to enforce upon a minority a system of valuation which neither this House nor any Parliament in the world would ever think of imposing. In every instance where you attempt to carry out this clause you will be creating an absolute injustice, because you are giving a majority the power to do that which this House would not itself authorise to be done. With regard to the rent, a statement is to be made about the amount that has to be paid, and the man who is exempted according to this section is not to be allowed to vote in any proceedings connected with the Church. How will you be in a position to ascertain the cost until you have had a meeting to vote upon the plans? This is where the Amendment comes in with great force. The men may be disfranchised at the last moment, but in the meantime how are you to know whether they will be contributors or not unless you have some obligation and guarantee that the money is to be forthcoming? You cannot exclude men from any participation in the voting on the plans, when it will not be known until the very end whether the Kirk

  375
  Session is to pay this money or not. Look at the position the Church would be placed in. If you have one parish where the money is not contributed by a Kirk Session, there you have a distinct grievance which would be felt us a statutory grievance, because although it is optional for the Kirk Session in the Bill to subscribe the money, yet it is a fair indication of the mind of Parliament that it is the duty of the Kirk Session to find the money, and if one Session does not find the money you create the grounds for an uproar in that parish. Is it not in the interests of the Church, if we are to acknowledge the principle of the Kirk Session contributing any share, that it should be fixed definitely, so that the money provided under the clause in every parish will be put on the same footing, and the possibility will not arise in future of one parish having a Kirk Session which pays, and another which does not pay, with the result that this grievance is ten times worse than under the existing state of the law? The amount is said to be £50. What reason is there for drawing the line at £50, and why should it not be £60 or £100? It is also provided that there shall be no assessment upon the buildings of any religious body. That system has gone on for many years, and there is a good deal of reason for maintaining it. If you have a church belonging to a dissenting body it can be sold to-morrow. The burden is attached to that church of paying its share for the taxation of the parish, and there is nothing wrong in principle in a matter of that kind. But it is different when dealing with the case of the parish church itself, because that church is in the same position as the poor - house. You do not assess the poor-house for Poor Law purposes, because it is the institution which is being supported. You do not charge the paupers with poor rates because they are paupers, and a parish church is in quite a different position from the dissenting church, because it is the object and not the subject of taxation. In the case of dissenting churches it is private property, which may increase in value and which may be sold. On the question of principle I do not see any reason for this exemption. I admit it is done for the purpose of endeavouring to remove a grievance, but when you deviate from a principle in removing a grievance you will find that you land yourself into
  376
  worse confusion. The moment you deviate from the principle you are carried away to any extent, and I think it is a pity that the Church, if they intend to deal with this question, should not have dealt with it in the more modified degree mentioned by my hon. friend, and which is the object of this Amendment. The payment of this money should be made compulsory on the part of the Kirk Session. If you did that you would have a good reason for excluding people from participation in the voting. I do not see how it is possible without this new clause to go on excluding in this way. I think the Church, in its own interest, has not been well advised in raising this question in this perfunctory manner. The dissenting churches of Scotland not only provide their own churches and manses, but they provide about £1,500,000 a year for their religious teachings. When you consider that the Church of Scotland, which claims to contain the wealthiest portion of the community, only contributes £500,000 a year for all purposes, and when it is borne in mind that the Church of Scotland gets its ministers' stipends paid for out of the teinds, surely it is not too much to say that they should also pay to provide comfortable habitations in which to go to worship. If the principle is just that these small heritors should pay, it ought to be made compulsory, and if it is not just they should be excluded. I beg to second my hon. friend's proposition.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'now read the third time,' and add the words 'recommitted in respect of a New Clause'" — (Sir Charles Cameron)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'now read the third time' stand part of the Question."
  *MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I think the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire has gone very wide afield in seconding this motion. He has conjured up a very formidable list of dangers and difficulties that will happen if this Bill is passed. They are mostly imaginary, and in so far as they are not imaginary I do not think it is beyond the wit of man to find some way of avoiding them. I may remark, however, that there was much in what the hon. Member said about the question of assessments

  377
  which I would commend to the notice of my hon. friend whose motion he seconded. With regard to the motion of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, the hon. Member claims my support because he says the same clause was contained in a Bill in 1884, which I had the honour of introducing. I am not ashamed of that clause in its original position. I think it was a good clause in the Bill of 1884. But we are now no longer concerned with that Bill, for we have another Bill before us which contains a provision which makes the clause unnecessary. The object of the clause was to give security that the promoters of the work for which an assessment was to be imposed would produce funds to replace the sums lost to the assessment by the exemptions or deductions due to the operation of the Bill. The Bill made certain exemptions or deductions from assessment in favour of certain heritors, called feuars. In order that no additional burden be thereby imposed on the other heritors the deficiency in the product of the assessment caused by these exemptions must be found otherwise, and the clause proposed that a bond of security should be given by persons of satisfactory standing that this money should be forthcoming. That is the clause which my hon. friend proposes to add to this Bill. It was necessary in the Bill of 1884, but the present Bill provides that the money must have been actually raised and paid by the Kirk Session to the collector of the assessment. In other words, instead of asking for security, it requires a cash payment. There is therefore no longer any need for the clause. The question has been asked, why continue the burden upon land of maintaining the church and manse buildings? The question should rather be, why should land be relieved of this burden? Estates in Scotland for generations past have been subject to it, have changed hands under it, and have come into the possession of the present owners with this burden upon them. Purchasers have paid so much the less for their estates because of this burden. I would ask our friends on the Opposition side do they propose to make
  the landlords of Scotland a present of £42,000 a year? That is the sum which the burden was found to amount to, some years ago. The heritors of Scotland as a body do not complain of the burden, and never have done so. It is only a section of their number, the small feuars, who have complained. Their position is somewhat peculiar. They hold that for many years it was not understood that they were liable to any share of this burden. For fifty years after the law was declared it never was put in force, because there was no valuation roll to enable the assessors to get at the value of the feuars' properties, and when the Valuation Act was passed in 1854 and it was made possible to reach the feuars, they not unnaturally felt that they had a certain grievance when an assessment of this kind was levied upon them. The Church now wishes to relieve the small feuars, but in such a way as not to impose any additional burden upon the other heritors. Such is the reason for this Bill. The Bill is applicable to the original parishes only—some 900 out of 1,350. As regards parishes with a large urban element, in which any assessment if imposed would be on the real rent, and in which the number of heritors, including feuars, would be very great, I believe the practice, when outlay on church building is required, will increasingly be to have no assessment whatever, but to raise the money wholly by voluntary subscription—as has recently been done in the instances of St. Cuthbert's, Edinburgh; Barony, Glasgow; and Abbey, Paisley. But that is not inconsistent with retaining the obligation of heritors for such assessments. Even when the money is raised by subscription individual heritors are found as a rule to contribute willingly, recognising their obligation as heritors although it is not enforced by an assessment. But cases will occur when recourse to assessment is necessary, and this Bill will make it possible to carry it out without such friction as has been caused in too many instances in the past.
  Question put.
  The House divided: — Ayes, 145; Noes, 55. (Division List No. 147.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

  Bethell, Commander

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Purvis, Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Henderson, Alexander

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt, Trotter

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Butcher, John George

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm)

  Jessel, Captain H. Merton

  Rutherford, John

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Kennaway, W. Hn Sir John H.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kimber, Henry

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lafone, Alfred

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Curzon, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Denny, Colonel

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Strauss, Arthur

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lopes, H. Yarde Buller

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ.)

  Doughty, George

  Lowles, John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Faber, George Denison

  Macartney. W. G. Ellison

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Flower, Ernest

  Middlemore, In. Throgmorton

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Fry, Lewis

  Monk, Charles James

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

  Gedge, Sydney

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Wyndham, George

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

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

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. Wellesley

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  AYES.

  Billson, Alfred

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Steadman, William Charles

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Labouchere, Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Wason, Eugene

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Webberburn, Sir William

  Crombie, John William

  M'Crae, George

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dewar, Arthur

  Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthy)

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Mortnn, Edw. J. C (Devonport)

  Wilson, John (Durham Mid)

  Duckworth, James

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Emmott, Alfred

  Price, Robert John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fenwick, Charles

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Sir Charles Cameron and

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Mr. Caldwell.

  Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. BIRRELL: I condole with the Lord Advocate, who is a
  380
  man of virile intelligence, on having to take charge and pass through the House-this measure, which even those who sit behind him regard as the smallest bantling

  381
  ever introduced into this House even by a Minister of the Crown. It is the smallest and most pedantic measure ever seen, a microscopic measure of the poorest description. You might describe it in Shakespearean language as "the baby of a girl." The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that from time immemorial there has been this charge upon the land of Scotland, and it is news to me to be told that any Scotchman who has acquired a portion of soil of his country should wish to be relieved of the burden of the maintenance of the fabrics of the Established Church, except, indeed, upon fair terms—namely, that the burden should be put upon the shoulders of those who derive advantage from them. That is a fair and reasonable solution, but why the existing state of things should be altered as it is to be altered by this Bill, simply because a number of feuars hold a small portion of soil, I am at a loss to understand. We are told there is a grievance, but it is not a grievance which has ever pressed itself upon my attention, at any rate. When I was in Scotland I never heard that the small feuars of the county of Fife had a burden more unbearable than that of anyone else as to the payments of local charges. It is not a thing to be disclaimed, and the small feuar should not be allowed in this House to disclaim it. It was on account of the existence of this charge that he obtained his land cheaper than he otherwise would. No doubt there is some misapprehension on this question in Scotland; the small feuar thought he was absolved from this burden, but it is now a long time since the obscure part of the law was made clear. The small feuar and the large landowner are both charged, but the way in which this Bill deals with the charge is highly characteristic of modern legislation. The small feuar is to be absolved from this burden on terms; that is to say, if the Kirk Session, by means of a bazaar or charitable contributions, is able to make good the deficiency, this Bill is to come into operation; but, unless the funds are forthcoming, the obligation remains. I think it is the first time in the history of Parliament that a person has been relieved of a burden in such a manner. This Bill is a very contemptible measure, and I think it is only fair to draw attention to this fact, that the small feuar is to be relieved of a burden which has been borne from time immemorial, if any persons in
  382
  Scotland—good, bad, or indifferent— are prepared to make good the deficiency out of their own pockets. I see no reason why the land should be relieved from a burden which it took in exchange for something very valuable. It has got off uncommonly easily from its other obligations, with regard particularly to education. However that may be, from time immemorial the land in Scotland has borne this burden, and if the question is to be dealt with at all it should be dealt with on a bolder and more honourable principle.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I think the hon. Member for West Fife has scarcely appreciated the object of this Bill, and his comments have been characterised by the same fault which ran through the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, who dealt with the technical points of the measure. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark complained, as the hon. Member who has just sat down complained, that feuars should be exempted from a burden which now falls upon them, and which has always been on the land in Scotland. But the hon. Members seem to forget that this burden did not always press upon the feuars, because they are a newly created class. It is really out of the question to say, as the hon. Member for Mid Lanark says, that every feuar has a right to a seat in the parish church. That is a legal fiction. St. Cuthbert's, Edinburgh, is a good illustration. Why, if the hon. Gentleman's argument were enforced the Waverley Market would not be nearly big enough. If the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had devoted his gifts to the ministry and had been minister of the church of St. Cuthbert's the oars of the greedy parishioners would have been open in vain to the voice of my hon. friend. The hon. Member went on to say that he objected to the clause in the Bill which exempts the churches of other denominations, and he asked why they should not pay. "Why do you not," he asked, "charge poor rates on paupers?" "Because," he said, "paupers are the objects and not the subjects of the poor rates." When he said that I could not but remember a proverb with which, no doubt, he is familiar. "You can't take the breeks off a Highlandman," because he does not happen to possess them. That is why you do not

  383
  levy poor rates on paupers. This Bill is not meant to do any more than permissibly allow the people to obviate a grievance which practically creates friction. The hon. Member for West Fife says it has never been brought to his notice that the feuars there object to bearing their burden. There is a simple reason for that. In the Division of West Fife, which he represents, the parishes are almost entirely and purely landward, and of course it is not in such places that opposition can emerge. It is in parishes which are not purely landward, parishes which are partly landward and partly burghal, and where there are large populous places, that the real difficulty arises. I hope the House will give this measure a Third Reading. I am content to allow the people of Scotland to decide as to whether the epithets of the Member for West Fife are deserved. We can well afford to wait for the measures he will introduce when he gets a well-deserved seat on this bench. But this Bill will as a matter of fact remove what has been an unfortunate cause of friction in the past, and stimulate the Church to greater activity in Scotland.
  *MR. HALDANE: I stand before the House as a valued heritor threatened with ecclesiastical assessment for the building of a new church. I want to remove this controversy from the air of abstraction hitherto attending it, and to present to the House the spectacle of my own grievance, if it is possible to get the House to listen. I am sure I shall succeed when I relate my tale. I live, in those times of the year when I am not compulsorily drawn to attend the sittings of this House, near a town where there is a parish church which for years has amply satisfied all my spiritual requirements. We have recently called a new minister. Little did we know what that would entail upon us. He says the sitting room is insufficient and that the fabric must be repaired. Under the law of Scotland as it stands at the present time he is in a position to call upon the heritors, and not only the valued heritors, to deal with the case. In that town there are a large number of people called feuars. The feuars of Auchterarder are a robust body. Their ancestors were out in the '45, and shed their blood in those days. Later on they brought about the Disruption.
  384
  As they attend the parish church much more frequently than it is possible for me to do, they are naturally the persons who, under a reasonable construction of the law, should meet this assessment. But how will things stand if this Bill passes? Why, the heritors will be the persons who will be primarily liable to the incidence of this tax, because if the Bill means anything it means that some relief is to be given to the feuars. The feuars of Auchterarder are net people who are excessively attached to the doctrines and associations of the present Government. They have, some of them, been very much opposed to the Established Church since the Disruption, and, as far as I can conceive the motive and purpose with which this Bill is introduced, it is merely to reconcile the feuars of Auchterarder and many similar places to a continuance of the principle of Establishment. What is this Bill brought in for? To remedy any grievance? No. It is like a number of other Bills brought before the House by the Government to redeem pledges given by private Members. For another example, there is the extension of the Compensation Act to farm servants. Without any manifestation of a desire that they should bring in this ecclesiastical assessments measure the Government at the last moment, when it is comparatively far on in its life, brings it in, I presume, with the object of being able to say to the people of Scotland that they have done something substantial for the Establishment. I am advised by experts on the spot that if this Bill passes it will not have the slightest effect on the minds of the people of Auchterarder. There is not the smallest probability that any contribution will be got out of the valued-rent heritors which they are not required to pay at the present time. I am glad to see from the first clause of the Bill that it cannot come into operation except with the consent of a two-, thirds majority in value. The clause states that—
  "It shall be lawful for any valued-rent heritor to request the clerk to the heritors to summon a meeting of valued-rent heritors in the manner prescribed by Section 22 of the Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland) Act; and if at such meeting it is resolved by a majority of not less than two-thirds in value of valued-rent heritors, voting personally or by proxy, that the amount shall be imposed according to valued rent, then such assessment shall be imposed according to the valued

  385
  rent, any law to the contrary notwithstanding."
  That gives me some confidence that the Government does not really mean that this is a serious measure. Why should hon. Members opposite in this House who have no interest in Scotch ecclesiastical matters be tormented with a Bill which can effect no practical change in the position as it is at the present moment?
  *SIR MARK STEWART: The hon. and learned Member for Haddington says that there is no possible grievance to be remedied. I utterly deny that proposition. In the year 1887 I had the honour to back a Bill brought in by my right hon. friend the Member for Edinburgh University, and I myself brought in a Bill in a subsequent year, very much of the same character as this one. A question very commonly asked at the last General Election was "Why cannot you do something in the direction of
  relieving the feuars of this burden?" It has been invariably the Liberal party who has opposed this kind of legislation, while the Conservatives have always been quite willing to remedy the present state of things. The hon. and learned Member for West Fife says that this is a microscopic Bill to deal with a microscopic grievance. It may be a small Bill and a small grievance, but there is such a thing as a sentimental grievance which is more hardly felt than a real big one. I have never been personally annoyed as a valued-rent heritor by the payment of the rate on valued rent, and I believe that most of the valued-rent heritors are willing and ready to pay their full quota of the rates. I heartily thank the Government for bringing in this Bill, and I hope it will be passed to-night.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 61. (Division List No. 148.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, George Denison

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swnsea)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Finlay, Sir Robert, Bannatyne

  Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

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

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Flower, Ernest

  Lowles, John

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Fry, Lewis

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Gedge, Sydney

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bethell, Commander

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cy. of Land.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

  Brassey, Albert

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Butcher, John George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Campbell, Rt. Hon J A (Glasgow)

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geor.)

  Monk, Charles James

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Henton, John Henniker

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Henderson, Alexander

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg'w)

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)

  Pease, Rt. Pike (Darlington)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Percy, Earl

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

  Denny, Colonel

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Kimber, Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Doughty, George

  Lafone, Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Rutherford, John

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wyndham, George

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Shefield)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Hazell, Walter

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Souttar, Robinson

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Stevenson, Francis S

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Burt, Thomas

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Caldwell, James

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

  Wason, Eugene

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Crombie, John William

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Duckworth, James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Robson, William Snowdon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Runciman, Walter

  Mr. Haldane and Mr. Birrell.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again "—(Mr. Caldwell)—put, and agreed to.

  LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords].
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), be now considered."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that this was a Bill of a most complicated character, relating entirely to England. It was to be regretted that the Government had not, when introducing a measure of this kind, availed themselves of the opportunity of practically consolidating the whole law on the subject. That could have been done in a very simple manner. As the Bill stood at the present moment it was impossible to consider the effect of it without going consecutively through the whole of the statutes from the Judgments Act of 1838, which were more or less repealed by the Schedule. So far as the operative effect of a judgment as a charge upon land was concerned, that was contained in Section 13 of the Act of 1838, but that section had no relation to the law as it at
  388
  present stood. All that was necessary to simplify the law was to recast practically the sections of the Act of 1838 which were still operative, and adapt them to the existing state of the law. If that had been done and another clause added dealing with lites pendens, they would have had the whole of the law relating to judgments as charges on land in one Bill. As it was the matter was left in so complicated a state that it would be very difficult indeed for any ordinary practitioner to know what the law really was. Then, the law was not to come into operation for a year, which would prevent consolidation for some time. He hoped that some attempt would be made, at no distant date, to consolidate the law and put it into a simpler form.
  MR. CALDWELL,MR. CALDWELL, in moving the Amendment standing in his name, said it was stated that the business of the Registrar of Judgments was to be transferred to the Land Registry, and power

  389
  was given to the Lord Chancellor, by order, to arrange for the abolition of the office of Registrar of Judgments. It did seem strange to provide for the transfer of an office and then for its abolition. It seemed to him that there was no very clear reason for abolishing the office, for it would have to remain for certain purposes connected with the registration of lites pendens. Again, the Bill was not to affect the Register of Scotch and Irish judgments. He merely formally moved his Amendment to enable the Attorney General to give an expression of opinion on the subject.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'transfer,' to the end of Sub-section I, of Clause 1."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)desired to acknowledge the spirit which the hon. Member had shown on this subject, in which he had taken a great interest, and in connection with which he had had the opportunity of conferring with him. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. The office itself was not to be transferred to the Land Registry, but the business of the office. The registration of lites pendens would also go to the Land Registry, subject to the rules in the Statute Book. The abolition of the office of the Registrar of Judgments would in no way affect the registration of Scotch or Irish judgments. As to the abolition of the office, if the Lord Chancellor found that it was necessary that the office should still continue to exist, the power of abolition placed in his hands would not be exercised without careful consideration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I hope the House will now assent to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  MR. CALDWELL: I do not object to the Third Reading being now taken, hut I hope the Attorney General will
  390
  give us some information on the subject of consolidation.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am sure the House will realise that there are many difficulties connected with the question of consolidation, but I hope in a subsequent session to have the assistance of the hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to pass a measure of that kind

  BURIAL GROUNDS BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: The Amendment which I now move was moved in the Standing Committee on Law, and was opposed by the Home Secretary, not because it was objectionable in itself, but because it was unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman must, however, have been unaware, or forgetful, of certain facts which would have modified his views, and I therefore wish to submit those facts to the House. I have also a further object in view in moving this Amendment, and that is to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman in this House an important statement he made in the Standing Committee in regard to one aspect of this Bill. This Amendment relates to the allotment of ground to religious denominations in public cemeteries, and it is necessary to inform the House how this system has originated and how it has been worked. One of the Burial Acts provides that every burial ground shall be divided into consecrated and unconsecrated parts, and that the un-consecrated part shall be allotted in such a manner and in such portions as may be sanctioned by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. When a witness from the Home Office appeared before the Standing Committee he was questioned upon this subject, and what was his admission? That the section to which I have just referred does not in any way explain what allotments are referred to, and that it was only "a sort of guess one had to make" that it was intended to be allotments to different sects. Yet on the strength of a mere guess the Home Office

  391
  has created a system of denominational allotment, and has determined the mode in which that system must be administered. Up to 1897 allotments had been mide in eighty-nine cemeteries and in all but nine to Roman Catholics, in other cases to "Roman Catholics or strangers," and in only one case to Jews. While it is admitted on the part of the Home Office that there is no decision on the point, it is the Home Office view that those to whom the allotments have been made have exclusive and absolute control over them. There has been a great deal of difficulty in certain cases. In the case of King's Lynn, a cemetery was provided by the town council many years ago and a small portion was allotted to the use-of Roman Catholics, but nothing was said about its exclusive use by members of that body. For several years no difficulty arose, but in 1892 it was desired to bury in a family grave in the Roman Catholic portion one who had been a Roman Catholic, but who had become a Protestant. It was desired that the deceased should be buried by the Baptist minister, and the desire was fulfilled. The Roman Catholic authorities complained of the invasion of their rights, and very unseemly scenes followed. The town council felt that they had no power to prevent the Baptist minister officiating on the occasion. The Home Office was appealed to, and they replied that when once an allotment was made on behalf of any body that portion must be reserved for the exclusive use of that body, and that it was the duty of the burial authority to resist any invasion of that right. Thereupon the Town Council very respectfully expressed dissent from the Home Office view, and asked whether the police were justified in interfering in order to prevent the alleged invasion of rights. At that point the Home Office faltered, and replied that they could not undertake to give advice, but would leave the local authority to act in accordance with their own discretion. Another case subsequently arose in the same cemetery. It was a case of a convert from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism, and the wish of the deceased was to be buried with her children in the family grave. Another case is new pending at Barn-staple. A burial service was performed in the ground allotted to Roman Catholics by a Church of England clergyman;
  392
  whereupon Father Byrne protested to the burial board, and the board refused to recognise the right, or rather the exclusive right, of Roman Catholics in the ground. The Roman Catholics appealed to the Home Secretary, and a reply has been received that in the opinion of the Home Office no other service can be held on the ground allotted to Roman Catholics, and the burial board has been called upon to comply with the requirements of the law. The argument of the burial board is that this is not a requirement of the law, but simply of the Home Office. There are several objections in my opinion to the entire system of allotments to religious bodies in cemeteries. It seems to me most unreasonable that when all the inhabitants of the parish defrayed the cost—sometimes the very heavy cost —of a public cemetery, one religious denomination should claim to have a sole and exclusive right to use a portion of the ground. Those who wish for separation in burial should, I think, be obliged to make separate provision for themselves. I see no reason whatever why members of the Roman Catholic Church should possess a privilege, or right, which has been distinctly taken away from the members of the Church of England. If that were unreasonable at the outset of this system, since the passing of the Burial Act of 1880 it appears to be absolutely preposterous. That Act affirmed the principle that there should be no distinction between consecrated and unconsecrated ground in either churchyards or cemeteries, but that orderly and Christian services might be performed anywhere, under certain provisions. But this allotment system is practically an invasion of the Act of 1880, because it continues, for the benefit of particular classes of the community, the restrictive rights which were abolished by the legislature. I wish to emphasise the fact that this has been done, not by statutory authority, but has been solely the action of the Home Office. No doubt the Home Office thought they were justified in adopting that course in past times, but now that the Act of 1880 has affected such a great change in our burial system I submit that this system of allotment is quite out of harmony with modern legislation, and that it requires to be regularised, if not abolished. The answer of the Home Office to my contention is that this Amendment is not necessary, and that all that it

  393
  seeks is provided for by the existing law. My reply is that the action of the Home Office is not compatible with the provisions of this Amendment, which affirms a principle that in my opinion the Home Office has distinctly violated. The practical importance of this question has been very much increased by what transpired in the Standing Committee. Some of the facts which I have described were brought out in evidence, and the question arose as to whether members of the Church of England could not also have the benefit of this allotment system, and on the Home Office witness being asked the question he replied, "In accordance with the strict words of the Act I do not see why not, because the Act is so extremely vague." Then he was asked whether, if allotments were granted to the Church of England it would not be an entire departure from the Act of 1880, and he replied that that was the Home Office view, if an allotment could be given to the Church at all. If the Home Office view were translated into action on the part of many members of the Church of England, it would be a practical abrogation of the Act of 1880, which required years of agitation and bitter feeling to place on the Statute Book. I hope the House will feel that the present state of the law is most unsatisfactory, and that, if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary does not see his way to abolish this system of allotment, he will strengthen the hands of the local authorities, in order that they may be able to resist the unjust and, as I think, the unfounded claim of religious denominations to whom portions of the cemeteries may have been allotted. The right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this question in the Standing Committee gave the assurance that there was no intention on the part of the Home Office to strain the allotment system, so that portions of, cemeteries might be allotted to the exclusive use of the Church of England. That is a very satisfactory explanation so far as it goes. I call the attention of the House to the fact that the Home Secretary has not stated a single objection to the Amendment. His sole contention is that it is uncalled for, as the existing law is adequate. I submit that the facts I have stated show that the existing law requires amendment. The purpose to be served by this Amendment cannot be obtained until the
  394
  law is altered. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are anxious that this should be an efficacious measure and that they would regret if, in consequence of any defects or mistakes, the Bill renewed the strife which prevailed for so many years. If the Amendment be unnecessary, it will be on the showing of the Home Secretary himself harmless. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to remove all apprehension on the point, by consenting to the insertion of these words. I beg to move, Sir.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 11, after the word 'board', to insert the words, 'Provided that where any portion of a burial ground is allotted under any Act for the use of any particular-religious denomination, the freehold of the same shall remain vested in the burial authority, which shall have the same control over burials therein as in other parts of the burial ground, and the provisions of The Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880, as-amended by this Act, shall apply thereto."— (Mr. Carvell Williams.)
  Question proposed, "That those words, be there added."
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I think that the hon. Gentleman is unnecessarily alarmed both as to what has been the practice of the Home Office which he has so consistently attacked and as to what is the present law. As I said in the Standing Committee, this Amendment may mean something more than appears on the face of it, in which case it would be objectionable. But according to the present interpretation of the law it is unnecessary, because the freehold remains with the burial authorities, and nothing that this Bill does in any way disturbs the right of the burial authority over ground over which their jurisdiction extends, whether it has been allotted or not. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the Home Office not only at the present time, but for years, has been straining the law. I can only say that everything which has been done by the Home Office has been consistently done, and in the opinion of the Law Officers has been in strict conformity with the statute.

  395
  When the hon. Gentleman asks for an assurance that there is no intention to allot to members of the Church of England, which he specially named, I can only say that if any application came from members of the Church of England for the allotment of unconsecrated ground —because by law the ground must be unconsecrated to be allotted—it would be for the Home Office to say whether under the law they must comply with the request or not. But hitherto, as the hon. Gentleman knows, members of the Church of England have desired to conduct their burials in consecrated ground and have never applied for allotments; nor, I am disposed to think, are they likely to apply. The Act of 1880 and its effect on the allotment system appear to be altogether misunderstood by the hon. Gentleman. The Act of 1880 was intended to get over certain ecclesiastical difficulties in consecrated ground, and also with reference to certain cases of church services in unconsecrated ground, and it is in no way affected by this Bill or by the operation of the allotment system. The general objection to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is this—I maintain in the first place that it does not alter the law. It may or may not alter the law, but on the face of it—at all events the first part of it—it does not. In the second place, if it does it is in distinct contradiction to the recommendations of the Committee. That Committee was a very valuable one, and did more to settle this very difficult and controversial question about burials than any action which has been taken in the House of Commons for many years, and I should be sorry if a point such as this were now reopened. The question of the allotment system was considered by the Committee, and one of their recommendations was that the system of allotment under the Burials Act should be continued. They obviously did not desire to enlarge upon the question of allotment at all, and I do think that, while I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman that this Bill should put an end to some of the more difficult and controversial questions, it would be much better—I say it with confidence—to carry out in their entirety the recommendations of the Committee and to leave the allotment system where it is. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.
  *SIR F. S. POWELL: First of all I must express my great regret that the hon. Gentleman who often claims the dignified position of peacemaker should on this occasion endeavour to foment strife. The proceedings of the Select Committee were conducted from first to last in a spirit of friendship and compromise, and I cannot see in the records of that Committee any motion made by the hon. Gentleman in the sense of his motion this evening. He seems to have been influenced at that time by the spirit of peace and goodwill which prevailed on the Committee, and I regret that a different spirit actuates him to-night. I should not have ventured to take part in this debate if it were not for the circumstance that my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen in Lancashire are greatly affected by these proposals. In Liverpool there is an allotment for Roman Catholics, and the evidence given before the Committee was as follows —
  "A portion of land was set apart for the use of Roman Catholics, so that the members of that body might be interred together, and it is the intention of the local authority to give this exclusively to Roman Catholics."
  That privilege has been long enjoyed by Roman Catholics. I believe it is greatly valued by them, and why should it be taken away? In Wigan, the borough I have the honour to represent, the Roman Catholics have had an allotment for forty-five years, and that allotment they have enjoyed in peace and contentment without any disturbance or friction or difficulty. Why does the hon. Gentleman representing the Nonconformists endeavour to interfere with the harmony which has so long prevailed? Not only in Wigan, but in the adjoining townships, the same system exists with the same satisfactory results and the same absence of strife. Am I not justified, therefore, in complaining of the language of the hon. Gentleman? He talks of concord and peace, but his language is not the language of peace, and his words are not the words of concord. I will oppose the Amendment on the ground that it promotes neither peace, concord, nor Christian love.
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I may say I raised the point in Committee, and divided the Committee on it.
  MR. BROADHURST: I am surprised at the extraordinary and misleading speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan. He has been attacking an entirely imaginary proposition. My hon. friend the Member for the Mansfield Division of Notts in his Amendment makes no attempt to remove these allotments, and he uttered no word whatever to justify the angry denunciations which I have never heard the hon. Baronet use before in such unmeasured terms. I am entirely at a loss to understand what should have excited him to such an extent. What my hon. friend proposes is that in case of an allotment of this kind the freehold should still remain the property of the burial authority, who should still continue to have some hold over the burial ceremony. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary aright, this Amendment would practically not alter the law.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I believe not.
  MR. BROADHURST: If that is so I would advise the House to accept the Amendment. The Home Secretary tells us in good faith that he believes it will not alter the law. He is stating what he believes to the best of his knowledge and authority to be true. If that be so the proposition of my hon. friend practically coincides with the existing law, and the denunciation to which we have just listened should have been addressed to the Home Secretary and not to my hon. friend. I hope the hon. Baronet will ask the permission of the House to offer some apology for the attack he has just made on my hon. friend. So far as I am concerned I do not wish to interfere with the sentiment of any religious denomination, either with regard to the burial ceremony or the location of the interment. At the same time I do think that every progressive Christian man must recognise the elementary principle of Christianity which deprecates as far as it can, without causing unnecessary pain, separation after death. It is a lamentable state of things, to my mind, that any one religious section of the community should desire to have a separate allotment for the purposes of interment. I do not see what reasonable justification there is
  398
  for it. But at the same time my hon. friend does not propose to interfere with it, although he regrets the existence of the sentiment. I thank the Home Secretary for the very nice manner in which he has met my hon. friend. He has made a very important statement, no doubt with full knowledge. I believe he is perfectly correct in stating that the main principle of this Amendment now exists in law, and I will therefore join with the Home Secretary in appealing to my hon. friend not to press his Amendment to division.
  *MR. GODDARD: Listening to the impassioned language of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan, I feel profoundly glad he was not on the Committee which had under consideration this important Bill—as I doubt if we should have arrived at this compromise. The object of the Amendment has been misunderstood by the hon. Baronet. The Member for Mansfield rose in Committee when this question of allotments came up and moved certain modifications, in order to leave himself free to discuss the matter on the Third Reading. It is not open, therefore, for the hon. Member for Wigan to attack my hon. friend as he has done. His object was to obtain the re-assertion of the principle contained in the Amendment—namely—
  "that where any portion of a burial ground is allotted under any Act for the use of any particular religions denomination, the freehold of the same shall remain vested in the burial authority."
  The Home Secretary has re-asserted that principle, and it was simply because my hon. friend thought it was not asserted sufficiently plainly that he put the Amendment on the Paper. He would have preferred if the Home Secretary had stated in the House as plainly as he stated in the Grand Committee his views in regard to allotments and the Church of England. He asserted that the Home Office did not wish to encourage the use of the allotments by the Church of England, nor to give its sanction to it.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: What I said was that it was the duty of the Home Office, when an application was made for an allotment, to see that the law was carried out.
  *MR. GODDARD: I think he went so far in the Standing Committee as to say

  399
  that the Home Office would not encourage the granting of allotments to the Established Church. That is really the object of the Amendment, and the principle having been re-asserted, I quite agree with the hon. Member for Leicester that this Amendment should not be pressed to a division.
  SIR R. C. JEBB: As I had the honour to be chairman of the Select Committee, I wish to bear my testimony to the fair spirit shown by the hon. Member for Mansfield. I venture to think, after what has fallen from my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, that the hon. Member for Mansfield might be content with having moved this Amendment.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I also appeal to my hon. friend not to press this Amendment to a division. If he presses it I am afraid many of us on this side will vote against it. If a cemetery is constructed under the Act of 1853 consecration must follow as a matter of course, but in that case it has always been the practice of the burial authority to allot a portion of the burial ground to Roman Catholics, and to give them certain privileges, but it has never been understood that the freehold of that portion should be given with the allotment. I do not agree with the remark that this Bill settles the controversy, because under Clause 2 this Bill gives power to the Home Office to go behind the local authority, although the local authority has to provide the cost of making the cemetery. In every case now under this Bill consecration must follow. [AN HON. MEMBER: No.] Oh, yes it will. It is my reading of Clause 2 that consecration is bound to follow. I ask my hon. friend to withdraw the Amendment so that it may not be misconstrued.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: After the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: The object of the Amendment I now beg to move is to bring one portion of the Bill
  400
  into harmony with another portion. One of the clauses provides that the existing fees shall continue to be levied for a certain period from the passing of this measure, whereas the final clause provides that the Act shall come into operation on 1st January next. I cannot imagine that any inconvenience will arise if the Act comes into operation as soon as it receives the Royal assent. Otherwise, for several months to come the burial authorities will be much embarrassed, in acting under a law which has only a few months to live. It would be better to adopt the date of the Act as the date when it will come into operation.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "In page 5, line 25, to leave out the words first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and one,' and insert the words 'day of the passing thereof,' instead thereof."— (Mr. Carvell Williams.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: In point of form, I think if the object of this Amendment is to be effected that the best way would be to leave out the sub-clause altogether. Then the Act would come into operation on receiving the Royal assent. But great inconvenience would be caused if this Act came into operation then. There is a great deal of work to be done by the Central Departments concerned, as well as by local authorities, immediately after the passing of the Act and before it comes into operation. I do not know that there is any example of a Bill which requires so many administrative preparations as this one being brought into effect before there is time to consider them. I hope the hon. Gentleman, after consideration, will not press the Amendment.
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I do not attach importance to this Amendment. I made it suggestively, and I have no wish to press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  COUNTY COURTS (INVESTMENT OF DEPOSITS) BILL [Lords].
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The object of the Bill is that money which is obtained in certain cases may be in-vested in the Post Office Savings Banks, That is the procedure under the Act of 1897. If the money is not invested in some such way it is very apt to be squandered by those who get the control of the money. Under these circumstances this is a Bill deserving of attention, and I hope the House will be content to take the Second Reading.

  INEBRIATES AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELL: This is a Bill to amend the Inebriates Act which was passed in 1898. I think it is always objectionable when we have a Bill introduced in one session that it should be necessary to proceed almost in the next session to amend it. It shows the necessity when a Bill is before the House of having it properly considered, so that it should not be necessary always to bring in these amending Bills. Indeed, a great many of the Government measures consist of Bills to amend the legislation of the two previous years. Under the Inebriates Act the funds for providing homes for inebriates are to be levied in the same way as the funds for reformatory schools are levied. These funds are provided under a rate called the prisons rate, so that in order to know what is levied under the
  402
  Inebriates Act you have to get the Reformatory Schools Act, and when you have found that you have to ascertain how the prisons rate is levied. That rate, I think, in almost all cases is levied on the owners. This Bill proposes to change the rate to the public health rate, which in Scotland is levied half on owners and half on occupiers. I object altogether to the public rates being used for the purpose of providing homes for inebriates. We have precedents for providing money from other sources. As the House is aware, we take certain sums of money from the duties on spirits and licensing for the purpose of aiding local rates. I would suggest that in making provision for the homes for inebriates we ought to provide the funds out of the whisky duty or some other tax of that kind. It seems to me to be a fair principle that if the sale of whisky and other spirituous liquors, which, of course, is recognised in this country, produces an evil requiring a remedy in the shape of suitable inebriate homes, then that provision should be made a special burden on that article of excise which causes drunkenness and the necessity for these homes. That is why I have put down an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. I have done so principally to raise the question as regards the change proposed the levying of the tax in connection with public health. As compared with the existing law, certainly the Bill is an improvement. There is no question about that. I do not know why the ratepayers should be compelled to pay for the provision of such homes when many of them do not consume spirits at all. If the burden of providing inebriate homes is placed on the taxation of spirits, you will have a wealthy fund to draw upon, and I am sure there would be no objection whatever in the country. The other point to which I wish to refer is that a new offence has been created so as to bring the inebriates within the Act. I have always a strong objection to the creation of a new offence with the view of bringing it under any particular Act. The common law of Scotland and the licensing laws are strong enough for all practical purposes. Until the Inebriates Act was brought into operation I never heard any complaint as to the law. I do not know any special reason why this new offence should be created. We will hear an explanation from the Lord Advocate, but I hold that the support of an inebriates'

  403
  home should be a burden on drink itself. I beg to move that the Second Reading be postponed for three months.
  MR. PRICEseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The hon. Member may rest assured that there is no intention here to create any new crime. The scheme of the Inebriates Act was to deal with offences of which drunkenness was the essence of the offence. As it happened, there were a great many offences under English law of which drunkenness was the essence of the offence, and consequently these offences were put in the schedule of the Bill. Persons who suffered conviction for these offences were liable to be put in an inebriates' home. But the law of Scot- land was different. It was mostly common law and not statute law, as in England. There was this anomaly, that except in certain cities under Police Acts there were few places where drunkenness was the essence of the crime. If the Act were allowed to remain un amended it would be practically a dead letter in Scotland. The object of the Bill is to create a new offence in one sense, but it is an old offence in another sense. As regards the other matter, the rating clause, the hon. Member for Mid Lanark candidly confesses that he thinks it an improvement, but his objection is that this ought not to be a charge on the local rates at all, but on the Imperial funds Whether the hon. Member is right or not I am not at the present moment going to discuss. It is perfectly evident that you could not expect that inebriates' homes should be made a charge on the Imperial funds in Scotland, while not so in England. The scheme of the Act of 1898 was that only criminal inebriates were to be dealt with in State inebriate reformatories; but if you come to the minor offences of drunk and disorderly when they are repeated more than a certain number of times within a certain
  404
  period, then they are to be dealt with in inebriate homes provided by the local authority. That is the law in England, and you would scarcely expect that in Scotland they should be supported from the Imperial funds.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I am afraid I cannot on this occasion follow my hon. friend into the lobby on the ground he has suggested. I quite agree with the Lord Advocate when he states that that would be an injustice to England. In a large number of places in England it has been decided not to put the Act in operation, but where they do put it in operation it must be a charge on the county funds and not a charge on the Imperial Exchequer. I regard that as a very proper manner in which to raise funds for the cost of inebriate homes, for this reason: if you bring home to the people the enormity of excessive drinking you will have better administration under the Licensing Act, and they will put the law in operation to a greater extent to prevent drunkenness than has been done in the past. I must say I am surprised that the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, who takes such a keen interest in most of these questions, should suggest on this occasion that the charge should be an Imperial one.
  It being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday

  SUPPLY [15TH JUNE].
  Resolutions reported:—
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

    CLASS IV.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding —5,585,099, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding —86,280, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the

    405
    charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and other Expenses of the British Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, including certain Grants in Aid."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding —8,374, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Mill-bank, including a Grant in Aid for the purchase of Pictures."
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding —2,520, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Portrait Gallery, including a Grant in Aid for the purchase of Portraits."
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding —4,967, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Wallace Collection (Hertford House)."
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding —35,724, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for sundry Grants in Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants."
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding —67,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for Grants in Aid of the Expenses of certain Universities and Colleges in Great Britain, and of the Expenses under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889."
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding —5, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,
    406
    1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the University of London."

    CLASS V.
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding —255,384, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad, and of the Consular Establishments Abroad and other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding —167,186, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for Grants in Aid of the Expenses of the British Protectorates in Uganda and in Central and East Africa, under the Uganda Rail-way Act, 1896."
    11. "That a sum, not exceeding —256,955, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."
    12. "That a sum, not exceeding —1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for a Grant in Aid of the Revenue of the Island of Cyprus."
    13. "That a sum, not exceeding, —14,350, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901, for the Subsidies to certain Telegraph Companies."

  POST OFFICE SITES [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the

  407
  payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all sums payable by the Postmaster General under any Act of the present Session to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire Lands for the Public Service, and of all expenses incurred in carrying into effect the Provisions of such Act."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

  DISTRICT COUNCILLORS AND GUARDIANS (TERM OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUELobjected to the Bill being considered at this hour.
  MR. BUTCHERappealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his opposition, remarking that the object of the Bill was simply to remedy a defect in the Local Government Act.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUELsaid they were having a large number of Bills to alter that Act. If the law was to be altered the Local Government Board should take the subject up and introduce a comprehensive amending Bill.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board have no objection to this Bill.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: The Local Government Board should bring in
  408
  a measure instead of dealing with the subject in this piecemeal way.
  Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

NEW BILLS.
  JURORS PAYMENT.
  Bill to regulate the summoning and payment of jurors, ordered to be brought in by Sir Fortescue Flannery, Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. M'Ghee, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Emmott, Sir Edwin Durning - Lawrence, Mr. Flower, and Mr. Greville.
  JURORS' PAYMENT BILL.
  "To regulate the summoning and payment of jurors," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 2nd July, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (MAGISTRATES).
  Bill to constitute as ex-officio Magistrates the Chairmen of Boards of Guardians, ordered to be brought in by Sir Fortescue Flannery, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Heath, Mr. Galloway, Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, Mr. Flower, and Mr. Greville.

  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (MAGISTRATES) BILL.
  "To constitute as ex-officio Magistrates the Chairmen of Boards of Guardians," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 2nd July, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve of the clock.

LORD INCHIQUIN.
Petition of Lucius William, Baron Inchiquin in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Sir Richard Everard Webster, G.C.M.G., late Her Majesty's Attorney General, Keeper or Master of the Rolls and Records of the Court of Chancery in England, having been created Baron Alverstone of Alverstone in the Isle of Wight and county of Southampton—was (in the usual manner) introduced.
REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Viscount Frankfort de Montmorency a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Lord Inchiquin, deceased; with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto. Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.
The Marquess of Winchester sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
The Viscount Frankfort de Montmorency took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Bradford Corporation.

Great Western Railway.

Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.

250
Also the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:—

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

Metropolitan Common Scheme (Petersham) Provisional Order.

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—

Roe's Patent (Petition for Bill).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

WORKINGTON RAILWAYS AND DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
MORECAMBE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL.
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
ALEXANDRA PARK (PETITION FOR BILL).
  ROE'S PATENT (PETITION FOR BILL)
  Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Friday next.
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Report of Her Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 1st and 28th of May last discharged, and Bill committed for Monday next.

GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to

251
the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 30th of April and the 28th of May last discharged, and Bill committed.

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
WIDNES AND RUNCORN BRIDGE BILL.
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
RAMSGATE CORPORATION IMPROVEMENTS BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LANCASHIRE, DERBYSHIRE, AND EAST COAST RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTHPORT WATER BILL.
  HASTINGS HARBOUR BILL.
    MAIDENHEAD GAS BILL.
    Read 3a, and passed.
HOYLAKK AND WEST KIRBY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  SOUTHPORT EXTENSION AND TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
FARNWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE, COMMERCIAL GAS, AND SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES BILL.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
  JARROW AND HEBBURN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL.
  LAMBETH WATER BILL.
  LONDON AND SAINT KATHERINE DOCKS AND EAST AND WEST INDIA DOCK COMPANIES BILL.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  MID-KENT WATER BILL.
  NEWRY, KEADY, AND TYNAN LIGHT RAILWAY BILL.
  PORTLAND URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
  SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL.
  WANDSWORTH AND PUTNEY GAS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

GLASTONBURY CORPORATION GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment.
DORKING WATER BILL [H.L.]
  FISHGUARD WATER AND GAS BILL [H.L.]
    MOUNTAIN ASH WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  WITHTNGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Crofton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Crawshaw; read, and agreed to.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
    HAMILTON BURGH BILL.

      HAMILTON, MOTHERWELL, AND WISHAW TRAMWAYS BILL.
      AIRDRIE, COATBRIDGE, AND DISTRICT WATER TRUST BILL.
      AIRDRIE AND COATRIDGE TRAMWAYS BILL.
      GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
      LEE CONSERVANCY BILL.
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Buckinghamshire be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Lichfield; read, and agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 109.)
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
      TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]
      Committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.]
    Committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
      ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL [H.L.]
      Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers having been commanded to be presented to this House by Her Majesty had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Order of the House of the 17th February, 1896, vizi—
  Trade Reports—

  I. Annual Series—

  No. 2436. United States (Trade of the Philippine Islands, 1899). (May 31.)

  No. 2437. China (Pakhoi);

  No. 2438. Italy (Genoa and District);

  No. 2439. Netherlands (Amsterdam);

  No. 2440. France (Pondicherry);

  No. 2441. Turkey (Beirut and Coast of Syria);

  No. 2442. Persia (Persian Gulf);

  No. 2443. China (Swatow). (June 6.)

  No. 2444. Japan (Yokohama);

  No. 2445. Spain (Bilbao and District);

  No. 2446. France (Dunkirk);

  No. 2447. Russia (Taganrog);

  No. 2448. Switzerland;

  No. 2449. China (Hangchow). (June 11.)

  II. Miscellaneous Series—

  No. 526. Shipping and shipbuilding on the American lakes. (May 31.)

  Malta.—Ordinance No. X. of 1898 (the Contagious Diseases Law). (May 31.)
  Metropolitan Water Supply (Royal Commission).—Minutes of evidence taken before Her Majesty's Commissioners

  255
  appointed to inquire into the subject of the water supply within the limits of the Metropolitan Water Companies. Vol. II. (June 6.)
  Army (Volunteers).—Annual Return for 1899. (June 7.)
  Fisheries (Scotland). — Eighteenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, being for the year 1899—

  Part II. Report on Salmon Fisheries. (June 8);

  Part III. Scientific Investigations. (June 12.)

  Local Taxation (Royal Commission;.— Minutes of evidence and appendix. Vol. IV. (June 8.)
  Board of Education—

  1. South-Eastern Division. General Report for the year 1899, by I. W. Danby, Esq., Chief Inspector.

  2. East Central Division. General Report for the year 1899, by Reverend C. D. Du Port, Chief Inspector. (June 8.)

  3. Report to the Board of Education of the Proceedings of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1889, for the year 1899. (June 12.)

  4. Minutes sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, for the counties of—

  I. Warwick (sixth minute);

  II. Glamorgan (ninth minute). (June 12.)

  5. Associations constituted under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897;

  6. Associated schools and amounts of aid grant paid;

  7. Unassociated schools and amounts of aid grant paid. (June 16.)

  India (Famine).—Papers regarding the famine and the relief operations in India during 1899–1900. Vol. I. British Districts. Vol. II. Native States. (June 15.)
  Patent Office.—Report of the Committee appointed by the Board of Trade to consider various suggestions which have been made for developing the benefits afforded by the Patent Office to inventors. (June 15.)
  Irish Land Commission—

  1. (Proceedings.) Return for the month of February, 1900.

  2. (Rules.) Rules, dated 21st May, under the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Act, 1899, section 2. (June 15.)

  Loan Fund Board (Ireland).—Sixty-second Annual Report, for 1899. (June 15.)
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

    ARMY.
    I. (Pay, Non-effective Pay, and Allowances).—List of exceptions to the Army Regulations sanctioned during the year ended 31st March, 1900.

    II. (Volunteer Rifle Ranges).—Grants which it is proposed to make out of the sum of £40,000 taken for this purpose in the Military Works Loan, 1899.

    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    No. 2450. Germany (Grand Duchy of Baden)

    No. 2451. Spain (Canary Islands).

    No. 2452. Netherlands (Java).

    No. 2453. Tripoli.

    No. 2454. Brazil (Porto Alegre).

    No. 2455. Denmark.

    No. 2456. Turkey (Bengazi).

    No. 2457. China (Wuhu).

    No. 2458. Italy (Elba).

    No. 2459. Turkey (Baghdad).

    No. 2460. Spain (Trade of Barcelona for the year 1899).

    Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom for the year 1899.

    DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
    Forty-second Report of the Board of Superintendence, with appendices for the years 1899–1900.
    Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
    Orders in Council of the 15th May, 1900—

    1. Approving certain pilotage byelaws made by the Humber Pilotage Commissioners.

    257

    2. Recognising in this country certificates of free board (load line) issued by the Government of South Australia to vessels registered in that Colony.

    EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
    Order in Council of the 15th May, 1900, declaring that acetylene in admixture with air or oxygen gas shall be deemed to be an explosive within the meaning of the Explosives Act, 1875.
    PRISONS (SCOTLAND) (DIETARIES).
    Rules made by the Secretary for Scotland under the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, establishing new rates of dietaries for the several classes of prisoners.
    INDIA (PROGRESS AND CONDITION).
    Statement exhibiting the moral and material progress and condition of India during the year 1898–99. Thirty-fifth Number.

    SUPERANNUATION—TREASURY MINUTES.
    I. Declaring that the following persons were appointed without Civil Service certificates through inadvertence on the part of the Heads of their Departments, viz.:—John Roberts, turnkey, Consular Gaol, Yokohama Consular Service; James Alfred Dawson, rural postman, Post Office Department.
    II. Declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Sanitary Surveyor under the Board of Trade (Mercantile Marine Services) professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are required.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL.
    Returns relating to the Council up to the 31st March, 1900; with estimate of expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1901.
    PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
    Licence granted by Her Majesty to Elizabeth Martin, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting the said Elizabeth Martin to be at large on condition that she enter the Royal Victoria Home, Horfield, near Bristol.
    POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER).
    Orders made by the County Council of the County Palatine of Lancaster, dividing the Parliamentary divisions of Heywood, Leigh, and Stretford into convenient polling districts.
    INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
    Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland appointing the places at which examinations for 1900 shall be held.
    PAWNBROKERS' RETURNS (IRELAND.)
    Return from the City Marshal of Dublin for the year ended 31st December, 1899.
    INCLOSURES, ETC., EXPENSES ACT, 1868.
    Fees to be taken in respect of transactions under the Tithe and other Acts, in accordance with the provisions of the Inclosure, etc., Expenses Act, 1868.
    HARWICH HARBOUR.
    Abstract of Accounts of receipts and expenditure of Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board, to 31st day of March, 1900, with report on proceedings, etc.
    FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
    Abstract of the Accounts of fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks for the year 1898.

    DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
    Accounts of receipts and expenditure under the Act for the year 1899.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
    Statutes made by the Governing Bodies of—

    I. St. John's College, Oxford, on 9th December, 1899, amending Statutes III. 1, III. 14, V. 4 (a), and XV. 2, of the Statutes of the College.

    II. Worcester College, Oxford, on 24th January, 1900, amending Statute III. 16 of the Statutes of the College.

    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 107.)

    ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS.
    Scheme for the management of the charity of William Price, in the parish of Fareham, in the county of Southampton, founded by will dated 24th August, 1721. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 108.)
    RICHMOND BRIDGE.
    Account for the year 1899. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CHINA — ANTI - FOREIGN DISTURBANCES—RECENT OPERATIONS.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Seeing the noble Marquess at the head of the Government in his place, I wish to ask him whether he can give us the latest news of the state of affairs in China.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I do not think we have any news which I can call of an interesting character. The Admiral has come back to Tientsin—this news comes through the Japanese boats —and we do not know exactly what grounds he had for coming back or what his intentions are. Also the Taku forts have been attacked, as I think your Lordships have seen in the newspapers, but we have not received any information of any result from that movement. I very much wish I could give the noble Earl fuller information, because it is naturally a matter which has created everywhere the utmost anxiety, both in this country and others. At present all we have been able to do is to inform those who represent us that their discretion is absolute, and to forward as many troops as we can.

  MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, this is a Bill which has been before your Lordships on more than one occasion, and has passed through this House, but has not become law simply for lack of time to consider it in another place. It does not,
  260
  therefore, require so full an explanation as might have been necessary if the Bill had been entirely new. On the contrary, there is very little that is new in it. I need not say much about the first three clauses, the second clause being an interpretation clause and the third merely a repetition of the law as it at present stands. The fourth clause deals with a matter which is rather troublesome to the clergy, and it has already been agreed to by your Lordships. At present there are two rubrics relating to the publication of banns of marriage which are somewhat inconsistent with one another, and it is sometimes thought that the clergy are bound by the one rubric and sometimes it is thought by the other. There is one rubric after the Nicene Creed which speaks of the proper time for publishing banns of marriage as immediately after that creed; and there is another rubric before the form of service for marriage which speaks of the proper time for the publication of banns as immediately after the Second Lesson. But it has never been settled in a court of law which of the two is the right interpretation. It is not really worth while to insist upon either, and this clause—which provides that the time for publishing banns shall be on Sundays, not earlier than the hour of nine in the morning after the Nicene Creed, or after the Second Lesson at Morning Prayer; and that if there is no Morning Prayer or Holy Communion the banns shall be published at Evening Prayer—will get rid of the difficulty by leaving it to the clergy themselves to decide what is the proper time for the publication of banns. To this I cannot conceive that there can be any objection. The fifth clause empowers the two Archbishops, with the consent of the Convocations and subject to the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, to alter the rubrics to correspond with what the Bill proposes to enact. The sixth clause is the most operative part of the Bill. It proposes that when the banns shall have been published, in the same way as they are published now, the marriage may be solemnised at any church in the diocese wherein the banns have been published. At present the marriage must be solemnised in the church in which the banns have been published; or, if they have been published in two

  261
  churches, as is very often the case, in one of those two churches. But this has been found to give rise to great inconvenience, and there is now no reason for maintaining the restriction. It is thought very much better that it should be left open to the parties who desire to be married to go to any church in the diocese they choose where the minister is willing to celebrate the marriage. In applying for the banns to be published the parties will have to state in what church they propose to get married. There can, therefore, be no concealment in the matter, and there is absolutely no danger of a clandestine marriage resulting from the restriction being repealed. The restriction was introduced in 1723 by the well-known Act of Lord Hardwicke, and has continued to the present day. Before Lord Hardwicke's Act it was open to persons desirous of being married to go to any other church in the diocese than that in which the banns had been published, and I think it is better on the whole that we should go back to that practice, now that the need for the restriction has passed away. Clause 7 deals with marriages of seamen, who are frequently put to considerable inconvenience owing to there being no recognised mode of publishing their banns. Often a sailor comes home and wishes to marry immediately, because, soon after, he will have to leave on another voyage. This clause provides that the banns of a seaman may be published in any church of the parish in which he usually dwells when not at sea, or, if his ship be in port, in any church within five miles of the ship. The eighth clause requires the parties applying for the publication of their banns to make a definite statement in writing containing those necessary particulars which hitherto the clergyman, generally speaking, has had to ascertain for himself. This will be a great relief to the clergyman. The ninth clause deals with marriage by licence, and provides that a marriage may be solemnised upon a licence duly issued from the registry of the Archbishop or Bishop of the diocese, and whether granted in the registry or through a surrogate, in any church within the diocese, provided one of the parties to be married under such licence shall have had his or her usual place of abode within the diocese for fifteen days before the granting of the licence, or upon a licence duly
  262
  issued from the registry of an archdeaconry—which is allowable in certain cases—in any church in any archdeaconry where such licences have been hitherto issued. In short, it gives the same liberty in respect to marriages by licence as Clause 6 gives in respect to marriages by banns. The tenth clause deals with marriages of seamen by licence, and the eleventh clause simply preserves the right of the Master of the Faculties and the Vicar-General of the Archbishop of Canterbury to grant licences. Under the twelth clause applicants are required to state precisely the names, descriptions, and usual place or places of abode of both parties and the name of the church in which the marriage is intended to be solemnised. When it is proposed to solemnise the marriage in a church in a parish in which neither of the parties have had his or her usual place of abode for fifteen days immediately before the granting of the licence, on the day such licence is granted notice will have to be sent by the person who obtained it to the minister of the church in which the marriage is to be solemnised. The fourteenth clause provides for the marriage of persons residing in canal or river boats or other movable dwellings, and proposes that, where either of the persons to be married shall be residing in a movable dwelling, the banns may be published in a church or chapel of the ecclesiastical parish in which the movable dwelling is at the time of the first publication of the banns, and a licence may be granted for the marriage of such person in any church or chapel in the diocese in which the movable dwelling is at the time of the granting of the licence. The fifteenth clause is a very important one, because it fixes the fees for marriages. In fixing the fees it is, of course, to be understood that there is no desire to prevent the parties who are married from giving very much more than the fee which is required of them. That is done at present in a very large number of cases, and there is no reason to discourage the practice. But at the same time it is of some importance that the fee which can be legally demanded should be the same in the church as in the registration office. There can be no question that in certain cases people do go to the registration office rather than to the church, because the fees in the

  263
  church of the parish where they live are higher than the fees in the registration office. The sixteenth clause is nothing more than a repetition of the law at it is at present, and the next clause provides that any false statement made knowingly by the parties shall be punishable as a misdemeanour. It is at present difficult to deal with false statements because they are not always reduced to writing. I have had some rather bad cases in which licences particularly have been obtained by false affidavits, and I have found that it was not possible to deal with these false affidavits at all. Clause 18 reserves the right of the Royal Family, and Clause 19 simply repeals certain clauses in former Acts which will be in- consistent with this Act. Of course, the clause might be omitted altogether, because this Act will repeal the clauses referred to ipso facto; but it is better that they should be distinctly inserted in order that the clergy may know exactly how these clauses stand. I believe, my Lords, that the Bill, if passed, will be of considerable advantage in many ways, that it will get rid of a great deal of friction, and that it will remove much discomfort and distress; and I feel very confident that nothing in it will give rise to any kind of abuse. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I rise, not for the purpose of asking your Lordships to reject this Bill, but to preserve my right to criticise the Bill in Committee. The marriage laws of the country are so extremely important that without great consideration we ought not to alter them. I think the most rev. Prelate has undervalued the effect of Lord Hardwicke's Act, which was passed to get rid of a mischievous and scandalous state of the law, and to remove a number of evils to which it is not necessary now to allude. I confess that I have some doubt about the repeal of that part of Lord Hardwicke's Act to which the most rev. Prelate has referred. The whole object of publishing the banns in the churches in which the marriage is to be solemnised is to give information to those who are likely to know the parties who are
  264
  going to be married. The most rev. Prelate now proposes to get rid of that provision. He proposes in the Bill that the parties shall state the church in which the marriage shall be solemnised, but he gets rid of the obligation to do it. There is no fortifying, as it were, of the provisions of the Bill. I cannot say at present that I have made up my mind whether or not this is too important an alteration of the law to be allowed to pass, but it is an alteration which requires very careful consideration.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: This is a matter which might well be considered in Committee of the full House, and I move that the Standing Committee be negatived.
  Moved, "That the Standing Committee be negatived."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: As Chairman of the Standing Committee I should deprecate very much a Bill of this kind not going to that Committee. In my opinion it is a Bill which it is very desirable should be considered by the Standing Committee.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I agree with the noble Earl. I do not think the motion is one to which the House can agree.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

  BURIAL AUTHORITIES (CREMATION) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, this is a Bill to enable burial authorities to provide and maintain places and necessary appliances for cremation. There are several safeguards introduced in the Bill. In the first place, the plans of places for

  265
  cremation must be approved by the Secretary of State, who must also approve of all the bye-laws to be made under this Bill, and after having approved of them he may at any time require them to be submitted to him for revision or modification. It is proposed in the Bill that the bye-laws shall prescribe in what cases, in what mode, and under what conditions cremation may take place, and may prescribe the forms of the certificates and declarations to be given or made before cremation is permitted to take place. Clause 6 provides penalties for a breach of the bye-laws; Clause 7 deals with fees, which are to be approved by the Secretary of State; and the last clause provides that the Act shall not interfere with the jurisdiction of any coroners under the Coroners Act, 1887, or any Act amending the same, nor authorise the Burial Board or other local authority to create or permit a nuisance. The principle of cremation has been sanctioned over and over again by the Legislature, and all that this Bill proposes to do is to enable burial authorities to raise rates for the purpose of cremation without having to go to Parliament for a private Act. If no question of rating is involved cremation is perfectly legal at present. The principle of burning the bodies of dead persons is certainly gaining ground in public favour. The corporations of Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, and Hull have already obtained private Acts giving them powers to provide and maintain places for the carrying out of cremation, and at the present moment the corporation of the City of London have a Bill before your Lordships' House in which they ask for similar powers. I am informed that the revenue from cremations is steadily increasing, so much so that the Cremation Society now possesses a moderate surplus. I have been asked whether the Act is intended to apply to Scotland or Ireland. As the Bill at present stands, I think it would not so apply, because it merely amends the Burial Acts, and I am unable to discover any Burial Acts which apply to Scotland or Ireland of the kind dealt with in this Bill. But if it is thought better I will, in Committee, consent to an Amendment taking Scotland and Ireland specifically out of the purview of the Bill. The Bill is supported by the London County Council and is not treated by them as a party matter, both parties having approved of its principle.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Monkswell.)
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: This Bill raises very serious questions, and involves some considerations which may be local and some which are of a wide general character. I do not rise to oppose the Bill. On the contrary, it seems to me that this is a question on which there-ought to be some general law to regulate cremations, whether carried out by private-Act or not; and in any Act passed on the subject, of course it would be understood that, being an Act of general operation, it would overrule those cremation Acts which have already been obtained. All the provisions of this Bill will have to be very carefully considered.
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  House adjourned at Five of the clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four of the clock.