Sitting of 8 May 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION TRAM- WAYS BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: In submitting to the House the motion which stands in my name, I am conscious that it is one of a not very usual character, but still, if the necessity arose, I should be able to show that there are abundant precedents for the House under the special circumstances referring the Bill back to the Committee which considered it. Notwithstanding the decision of the Committee, I feel to-day that I shall be able to satisfy the House that there are special and exceptional cases which justify us in asking the Committee which has considered this Bill to further consider its provisions. I am not going to ask the House to reverse the determination of the Committee upon the merits or demerits of a particular scheme that has been placed before it, but I am going to invite the House to express its judgment upon a special Report which has been made to the House by this particular Committee under special and exceptional circumstances, and I am going to ask the House to say that that Report is, under the circumstances, not one which the House is prepared to adopt, but that the Committee ought to take back this Bill and reconsider the provisions which it has deleted from it. The Committee, with regard to this Bill, has made a special Report to the House that the Bill sought power to make tramways within and also without the borough with the consent of the local authorities in whose districts they would be constructed, and who supported the scheme. But the Committee are of opinion that, having regard to the intended appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the question of municipal trading, they would not be justified in sanctioning the proposed tramway outside the borough except in the case of a short length of three yards in the
  1042
  urban district of Linthwaite, which will be in connection with the tramway of that district, leased with the sanction of the Board of Trade to and to be worked by the corporation. The short point which I wish to bring under the consideration of the House with regard to the special Report of the Committee is this. It is contended that the question of municipal trading is, because of the appointment of a Committee, sub judice and therefore this Private Bill Committee refused to Huddersfield and outside districts, which unanimously requested them, powers to have tramway traction between the borough and these districts, until the Municipal Trading Committee reported. I should like to ask the indulgence of the House whilst I very briefly explain the proposals of the Bill. The Bill is one which sought to empower the corporation to construct tramways in six different sections in various urban districts outside the borough of Huddersfield. Huddersfield cannot alter its physical configuration. It is the centre of a large manufacturing district, and radiating from the centre there are a number of tramways constructed by and in the possession of the corporation, and the whole of the surrounding urban districts, six in number, come to the Huddersfield Corporation and say, "We wish to have tramways connected upon your tramways, and we ask you to go to Parliament and get powers to have this done." At the unanimous request of each of these authorities, and at the unanimous request of each parish council in each of these authorities, with the cordial endorsement of the South West Riding County Council, Huddersfield comes before the Private Bill Committee to present this case, and being willing to construct and work tramways to these populous districts, surrounding its connection with their own tramway system. The position is especially peculiar in this way. It is not a question of municipal trading at all. Huddersfield, in the first place, sought to become possessed of municipal tramways net for any special desire to do so, but because it was helpless. Twenty years ago it desired tramway traction. It could not have it at the instance of any company. It came to Parliament to get powers to acquire tramways and lease them to any company that would take them. One company tried and failed. The tram-

  1043
  ways lay idle. They came to Parliament and said, "We cannot get any company to lease these tramways; will you empower us to work them"? Parliament was extremely jealous in those days of entrusting rights of this kind to corporations, and said, "We will only allow you to work them under the licence of the Board of Trade, and upon the Board of Trade being satisfied that no lessee will take and work them themselves." They tried to get a lessee to work them, but no lessee was forthcoming. The Board of Trade held an inquiry, but obtained no lessee, and being satisfied that no lessee could be obtained, they empowered Huddersfield, under licence of the Board of Trade, to work its own tramways. It continued to do so until 1897, in which year Huddersfield got from Parliament absolutely unrestricted power to work its own tramways on its own undertakings, and has done so successfully and to the profit and advantage of the ratepayers ever since. Another circumstance happened in 1898. One urban authority in a district lying on the circumference of the outside circle of which Huddersfield is the centre, obtained a Provisional Order to construct its own tramways. It tried, but found it could not do so advantageously, but could do it better by associating itself with the generating station in Huddersfield, and it came to Huddersfield and said, "Will you take a lease of the tramways if we construct them?" Huddersfield replied, "We will if we can have a forty-five years lease. We will not do so upon a twenty-one years lease limited by the Tramway Act of 1870." The Board of Trade said, "We will give this power, but subject to the condition under the Tramway Act of 1870, under a twenty-one years lease." That was not satisfactory, and the Board of Trade hold an inquiry, and wore satisfied that such were the local difficulties and the special circumstances that a special power ought to be conferred upon this contiguous suburb to have its powers for forty-five instead of twenty-one years. They were granted the powers, and the tramways are now being worked. That is a special local circumstance to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, because it has a most important effect upon the Standing Order which this House has laid down, and which was under the consideration of the Committee. Linthwaite, one of the suburbs
  1044
  having tramway connection with Huddersfield and other surrounding suburbs, come to Huddersfield and say unanimously, "We wish Huddersfield to connect us with their tramways." The situation is a difficult one. There are valleys running at the bottom of great hills, and the gradients are extremely steep. The population is very widely scattered, and the area is so extensive—I believe it is 12,000 acres—as to make it, with the exception of the last expansion in Liverpool, larger than the area of the whole of that city. In those circumstances these communities, employers and employees, manufacturers and workmen, the whole of the residents, with a large batch of evidence, came before this Committee and said: "It is essential to the development of our district that we should have this tramway connection with Huddersfield, which is our centre." Who were the opponents before the Committee? One only—the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company. Why did they oppose? Upon the ground that it might compete with their traffic, which only touches the fringe of one place. Anyone who knows anything about tramway traction knows that whilst a railway is to serve from one point to another distant point, tramways which radiate from a centre can pick up and set down passengers along the route, and railways do not meet the question at all. So far as railway competition is concerned, one of the railways—the London and North Western —who are even more affected, who run parallel with the proposed tramway to Marsden, although they petitioned, did not appear before the Committee at all. They have acquiesced in the proposal, and one of my hon. friends on the other side of the House, who sits for a Division of Manchester, and is a director of the London and North-Western Railway, is supporting us in this proposal. Under these circumstances, I want to point out what the position was, and I want now to come to the point upon which the Committee has specially reported to the House. They reported that they had not entertained this proposal with regard to these outside tramways, because the Government were intending to propose the appointment of a Committee on Municipal Trading. But this is not a case of municipal trading at all. It is a question solely of the good government of the district; and who can be so

  1045
  well able to determine that good government as the whole community who live in the district? It is not a question of our aggressively going into these districts against their wish. It is a question of our going at their special request and invitation, and giving them what they will not otherwise be able to obtain. It is not a question of our wanting to compete with or keep out a private company. No private enterprise could ever have given the people of Huddersfield the tramways which they possess. Neither can any private enterprise give the people, in consequence of the difficulties of the district, those services of locomotion outside, and, therefore, it is a question of their either getting it in this way or going without it altogether. Why should the community be deprived of these conveniences, which have of late years been given to other large towns in numerous instances? Since this Committee reported, the House, by another Committee, has actually granted these very powers to Bradford, and never said a word about the Municipal Trading Committee; and the House of Lords, which is not supposed to be very democratic in its consideration of these matters, has also granted similar power to work tramways outside its district to the borough of Burnley. If the House of Lords thinks it right to grant them to Burnley, and the House of Commons thinks it right to grant them to Bradford, why should they be refused to Huddersfield and the surrounding districts? It may be said the scheme is extensive. I wish to deal with that point, It is extensive only in the fact that the suburbs around are extensive, and that Huddersfield is the centre of the circle. It is not one great continuous length of tramway, but the suburbs extend from the centre in different directions. Another circumstance has arisen since the Committee reported. It is an important declaration by the Minister responsible in this House for the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking on the night after the debate in this House upon the question of municipal trading at a great public dinner, and in the presence of the representatives of the local authorities throughout this country, said he felt it necessary to deal with the proposition which has been submitted to this House. In the course of his speech he said one of the main duties of a municipality was to serve the interest of their
  1046
  own people in their own area, and even then there ought to be considerable latitude. The right hon. Gentleman continued—
  "Now I take for a moment the case of tramways. The tramways were always useful, most useful, and, as far as I can form an opinion, they are likely to be much more so in the future, and I am greatly interested in the subject, which very closely at the present moment concerns myself. One of the greatest problems of the present day is how we are to improve the housing of the poorer classes of this country."
  Without detaining the House with a long extract from this speech I may remark that the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that the way to deal with the question was to provide cheap facilities for getting from the towns into the suburbs, and to do that not only by means of cheap trains, but also by means of cheap trams. Then he added these significant words—
  "There must be some means of cheap and effective communication for the many thousands in this country to bring the people practically close to their work. Some people recommend the cheap trains, and undoubtedly the cheap trains might do a great deal; but, in my own humble judgment, they must in any case be supplemented by the provision of cheap tramways, and, with the cheap tramways, subject to this condition, which I feel should be entirely in the hands of the local authorities. There, I think, is an instance in which the rights of local authorities ought not to be strictly limited to dealing within their own area."
  That is precisely my point. This Committee wants to hang up the question of granting these powers to local authorities surrounding them, whereas the President of the Local Government Board says that they ought not to be restricted to dealing in their own area if they are going to give effect to the important principle which he wishes to have imposed on the country—namely, that of solving the question of the housing of the working classes by giving them cheap travelling facilities. That declaration of the President of the Local Government Board has been made since the debate on municipal trading and since the Report of this Committee. I humbly and respectfully submit to the House that it never was within the purview of the Government or of the House that, it should refuse to municipalities that which has been granted year by year for a large number of years past—the power of constructing and working their trams

  1047
  outside their own district. If I could bring to the knowledge of the House the special and particular configuration of this district by inviting the House to walk over it, I am quite sure the House would not hesitate for a moment to realise these special and local circumstances. I ask that the Committee should consider this Bill on its merits, and I am satisfied that if these powers are granted by the Committee it will be the means of conferring upon that district, at their own request, by their governing authorities, who have the best means of understanding the wishes of the people, the means of developing their district and promoting its welfare. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I wish to second the proposal of my hon. friend in order to illustrate the unanimity of feeling which exists throughout this whole district. I am the representative of the country lying on one side of Huddersfield. I can speak to the absolute unanimity of the people in that district. The people of Yorkshire are not a hasty people in coming to their decisions. They do not start half-baked schemes of legislation when they come to this House, and the people of Huddersfield have proved themselves so thoroughly capable of managing their tramways that exist at present, that with one voice the surrounding districts have asked them to come out and give them the advantages of this municipal undertaking. I think there is only one serious argument which we need anticipate on the part of those who may possibly oppose the recommittal, and that is that our course is unusual. It is so, and we have only taken it as a retort to the unusual course of the Committee itself. If it had been a case of the Committee having decided this question upon its merits we should never have come down with such a curious proposition as to ask to refer the question again to the Committee. We have come here to ask the House to recommit the Bill because the Committee practically by their report have asked the House to give them advice as to the line they shall take. The Committee refused to pass these clauses, but simply because there was a Committee to be appointed to inquire into the whole matter of municipal
  1048
  trading, and the Committee chose to interpret the object of the House in appointing that Committee as being to decide whether tramways were to go outside the boundaries of municipalities. What we say is that the Committee have interpreted the prevailing feeling in the House wrongly, and that the object of appointing the Municipal Trading Committee was not to put a stop for the next eighteen months to municipal progress, and to the passing of municipal schemes by Private Bill. The object has been declared by the President of the Local Government Board, on behalf of the Government, not to be in any sense to put a stop to municipal enterprise. In the speech from which quotations have already been made he assured the Association of Municipal Corporations that he is certain there is no desire or intention in the smallest degree on the part of this Government to do anything whatever that could in the slightest degree be antagonistic to the privileges and rights of municipalities. I think we are entitled to ask at any rate that the Government should not oppose the recommittal of this Bill, for after all one ounce of action on the part of the Government is of great deal more worth to us than a ton of protest on their part that they are not anxious to attack the development of corporations. I think we may at least hope the Government will leave it to the House to decide without throwing their power in the balance as to whether this Bill should be recommitted or not. After all it is a very serious thing if the corporations are to know that for the next eighteen months they cannot promote municipal undertakings, because it will depend upon the whim of the Committee whether they adopt the excuse of the Municipal Trading Committee or not. We ask that the Bill should be recommitted, and that the chance should be given to Huddersfield to have their Bill decided on its merits. There are, no doubt, some hon. Members opposite who expect that this Committee on Municipal Trading may lay down certain rules to prevent municipal enterprise from spreading outside the limits of boroughs under certain circumstances. Such a Committee would possibly find that there were cases where the agency of private companies was desirable instead of municipalities, but the case in question could not come under any rule except such an

  1049
  absolute hard and fast and mandatory rule as would prevent any extension outside municipalities. The larger part of this district is a small area, full of industrial communities, enclosed in a triangle with sides, perhaps, seven miles long, at each angle of which is a great city—Bradford, Huddersfield, and Halifax. It has never been suggested that that district could possibly be served "with tramways by one private company. All the local bodies in that district are intensely anxious to have Bradford and Huddersfield and Halifax sending out their tramways, and there is this additional reason for allowing these great communities to have the management of the tramways in that district, that a great part of the district will probably be gradually absorbed by these corporations before many years are passed. It is therefore almost absolutely certain that no rules will be laid down which would prevent the tramways spreading into these districts. I hope the House will act on the recommendation of my hon. friend, and be content to send back the Bill to be considered on its merits by the Committee, which has not yet decided upon them.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words from the word 'Bill' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'be re-committed to the former Committee.'"—(Sir James Woodhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. JEFFREYS: In discussing this Amendment I ought first to thank the hon. Gentlemen who so courteously agreed to postpone it last week because I was unable to be present. I will also say that this is not a party or a political question, although I happen to sit on one side of the House and the hon. Member for Huddersfield on the other. It is entirely a question for the House, and in coming to a decision the Committee, of which I was Chairman, was guided by the rules of the Mouse. I propose only to say a few words in support of its decision. In the first place we heard the speeches of learned counsel, we listened to the witnesses with much patience, and, after a hearing which lasted two or three days, we gave our
  1050
  decision in the terms to which my hon. friend has alluded. But with regard to the wishes of the local authorities outside the borough of Huddersfield, I think the hon. Gentleman has made some mistake, for, although we found in the course of the evidence that they were willing to acquiesce in the scheme, we also discovered that none of them supported it in any way by giving a single penny to the scheme or taking any part in the proceedings. They only said they would be glad to have this system of tramways, but they took no action to secure it. Now, we in the Committee were guided in our decision by the Standing Order 170A, which provides that—
  "No powers shall be given to any local authority to construct, acquire, take on lease or work any tramway, or portion of tramway, beyond the limits of their district, unless such tramway or portion of tramway is in connection with the tramway belonging to or authorised to be constructed, acquired, or worked by the local authority, and unless the Committee on the Bill shall determine that, having regard to the special local circumstances, such construction, acquisition, taking on lease, or working ought to be sanctioned."
  That was the chief ground on which we decided. The Bill sought very extensive powers. It was not a short tramway which was proposed to be made, for on the map which was placed before us in the committee room the trams were drawn out exactly like the spokes of a cart wheel in all directions, and I believe the aggregate length was something like fifty-two miles. It was, therefore, a large and extensive scheme which the Huddersfield Corporation asked us to approve. There was another clause brought under our notice by learned counsel of which we were bound to take notice. Clause 3 of the Railways Act, 1896, says—
  "A council shall not construct or work any light railway wholly or partly outside their district except jointly with the council of the outside area."
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: This is not a light railway.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I know it is not a light railway, but the argument of the learned counsel was that this clause went to show that it was not the intention of Parliament that municipalities should extend these undertakings outside their own area, except under special circumstances. Now, I should like to refer to some of the remarks of the learned

  1051
  counsel, Mr. Littler, Q.C., who has had very great experience in these matters.
  SIR J. WOODHOUSE: What has he to do with it?
  MR. JEFFREYS: He represented a railway company. I think his remarks are well worthy attention at the hands of the House. Reference had been made to the fact that the Corporation worked the Linthwaite tramways, and he pointed out how it was that the Huddersfield Corporation got powers to work that tramway which had already been constructed. It was not, therefore, analagous to a case of starting a new tramway. He said—
  "I do not know of any instance in which so barefacedly have corporations gone in for asking the authority of Parliament for municipal trading powers to such an extent."
  He also said that—
  "The reason why the Corporation of Huddersfield got power to work their tramways was that they did not pay in other hands. They could not get anyone else to do it, and, as the trams were in existence, they were allowed to work them."
  Further, he said that the proposed extension was beyond anything he had ever had experience of. Then he reminded us very properly that already the debt of Huddersfield amounted to £2,890,000, and if the powers asked for under the present Bill were granted, another £400,000 would have to be raised, and he suggested that that was a very large amount indeed to add to the debt of Huddersfield, especially if it. were done in contravention of the orders of the House. Now, we fully considered these matters. Counsel made long speeches, to which we listened attentively. It was urged, among other things, that the outside areas themselves could not carry out this scheme. But then we were bound to remember that that was because they were aware the system would have to be worked at a loss; therefore when the hon. Member for Huddersfield tells us that the outside authorities support the Bill I reply that "no doubt they do." They are willing to have the tramways, but they are not willing to pay a farthing in any shape or way in order to get them. The hon. Gentleman has said that a great many other schemes of a similar nature have been passed, but I believe the first was the Glasgow Corporation Act of 1870. He also alluded to other pre-
  1052
  cedents, but those he quoted were Bills which came before the Police and Sanitary Committee. And I fail to see how such precedents are applicable to this case. The Police and Sanitary Committee is not a Railway or Tramway Committee, but it has referred to it omnibus Bills, which include all sorts of matters. In regard to one particular case mentioned by my hon. friend, I find that the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee, in his Report, says that the Bradford Corporation Bill proposes to make tramways beyond the limits of the borough, to be in connection with tramways authorised to be constructed within the borough limits, and the Committee were of opinion that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, the Bill should be allowed to proceed. But that was very different to the Bill which we had before us. The tramways were not in existence. There was no communicating line of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord in the Bradford case. Neither was the Bradford scheme so extensive as that from Huddersfield. At at any rate we came to the decision we did because we thought it would be contrary to Standing Order 170A, and because we thought that as a Committee had to be appointed to deal with the question of municipal trading it was well that we should not pass the scheme so far as the outside areas were concerned until that Committee had reported. We thought it was only due to the House that we should take that course. I need hardly say that I have no interest in the matter what ever, I am not connected with any syndicate or company, and that in deciding the matter I desired to be guided by the rules and orders of the House. If the House decides that these tramways outside the borough ought to be made the Committee will, I am sure, willingly fall in with their view. But I repeat that we felt we were only doing our duty in refusing this extensive scheme until we had the direct sanction of the House.
  MR. ARNOLD: I have risen to address the House on this point because the matter is one of the most absorbing interest for all the districts around Huddersfield. No doubt locomotion from place to place is very difficult. They are only anxious

  1053
  they should have the same privileges as are already possessed by Halifax. I think the House hardly knows what can be done by means of these electric trams, but I may illustrate what is possible by pointing out what we have already compassed in Halifax by means of these electric trams. With such an enormous advantage to the community, is it possible to imagine that the privileges granted to Halifax are going to be refused to the districts outside Huddersfield? When the Light Railways Act was passed it was understood that its provisions would also apply to trams, and that when a community wanted a tramway system, it should get it with the sanction of the Board of Trade without the enormous expense of applying for an Act of Parliament. Unfortunately, some cloud of apprehension in regard to municipal trading has come over this Committee, and they have refused this Bill. But surely the Committee on Municipal Trading is not going to inquire into that question so far as gas and water works are concerned. That point has been settled already, and you have not very far to travel from Huddersfield to discover that municipal trading in tramways has also been settled. I hope, in view of the fact that this is a matter of absorbing interest to the populaces of these manufacturing villages—we may call them towns, for their inhabitants number from 5,000 to 10,000—this House will order that this Bill be reconsidered by the Committee. Comment has been made on the fact that these interested communities are not willing to put down any money, and that the trams are not to be constructed at their expense; but I can tell the House that they are willing to pledge their credit, and surely that is equivalent to putting the cash down. I trust the House will agree to this motion.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid this question was one of the greatest importance not only to the promoters and to municipalities of rural districts, but to many urban centres surrounding our towns and cities. Whatever might be the opinion with regard to the case before the House, he apprehended the House would be unanimously in favour of uniformity. Two decisions had been given by separate Committees, and if the decision of the Committee of which he
  1054
  had the honour to be a member was right, the decision of the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee was wrong. The procedure of the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee in regard to gas, tramways, or waterworks, or anything that might come before them, was identical with that of any ordinary Private Bill Committee, and consequently its work had been enormously increased. It was a great mistake for the House to suppose that proposals with regard to the tramways and traffic which came before the Committee were treated in any different way to that which they would be if sent to any Private Bill Committee. The resolution was of very great importance to all municipalities, corporations, and country districts, because, if it was passed, nothing need be done by a Committee of the House until the Committee on Municipal Trading had sent in their Report, which would be in the following year, in all probability. The Standing Order 170, which contemplated the construction of these tramways outside, laid down certain rules for the purpose, and it was never intended that the Committee on Municipal Trading should stand in the way of municipalities dealing with gas, waterworks, tramways, and things of that description; what it was intended to do was to prevent corporations going beyond the recognised rights of municipal trading and going in other directions. All these particular tramways were constructed with a view of being in the near future connected with the existing system of Huddersfield, and the Report had thrown them all out and made no distinctions. He could not help thinking some misunderstanding had arisen with regard to the matter, and he trusted the Committee would be asked to re-examine the question in the interests of the Committees of the House generally.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,said the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was fair and reasonable, but he had not said a word against the merits. It might be remembered that although there were precedents with regard to the extension of tramways outside boroughs, the Committee was debarred by the Standing Orders of the House from sanctioning tramways outside the borough of Huddersfield. Their position was that if the House thought they ought to reconsider

  1055
  their decision apart from the Standing Orders, they were willing to reconsider it. That course would be a sensible one for the House to take. He favoured the extension of tramways outside towns because they looked to it largely for a solution of the housing difficulty.
  MR. JEFFREYS: With reference to the Instruction on the Paper, I should like to know whether, if that be carried, it will be an Order of the House to insert all the names of the districts on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: It will not be an Order for the Committee to insert all or any of those districts, but merely to consider and report.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider and report as to the expediency of re-inserting in the Bill the power to construct additional tramways to and in the borough, districts, and parishes hereinafter mentioned adjacent to the borough, that is to say: The borough of Brighthouse; the urban districts of Mirfield, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Linthwaite, Lepton, Kirkburton, Honley, Thurstonland, New Mill, Netherthong, Holmfirth; and the parishes of Fixby, Clifton, and Hartshead, in the rural district of Halifax.—(Sir James Woodhouse.)

  POLICE SANITARY REGULATION BILLS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Committee of Selection do add Two Members to the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills; that they do divide the Committee, so augmented, into two Committees, and from time to time apportion the Bills committed to the original Committee and not already disposed of between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the orders and instructions in force in the case of the undivided Committee; that
  1056
  Three be the quorum of each Committee.—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  MR. HALSEY: I do not think that this motion ought to pass without a few words. I do not propose to oppose it, because I understand that the work of this Police and Sanitary Committee has arrived at such a state during the present session that unless some motion of this sort is adopted matters will come to a deadlock, and it will cause great inconvenience to the promoters concerned. What I wish to point out is that I hope the House will clearly understand that this motion is merely an emergency proposal for the present session, and will not interfere with the future arrangement of business connected with this Committee. I have always understood that the object of the appointment of this Committee was to ensure uniformity of decision on matters connected with proposals in Private Bills affecting the general law of the country. By dividing this Committee into two you run the risk of doing away with that very uniformity which this Committee was established to promote. I also wish to say on behalf of the Committee of Selection, that the work of this Committee—as we see from the fact that it has brought about this motion—is extremely arduous, but at the same time it is work which it is absolutely necessary should be entrusted to the very best and strongest Members of the House. Unfortunately, the Committee has found that there is increased difficulty every year in finding efficient Members of the House to serve on this Committee. Service on this Committee is not compulsory, and therefore no Member can be bound to serve without his own consent, and it has become increasingly difficult to find hon. Gentlemen of the requisite capacity who are willing to serve on this Committee. My reason for rising is to express the hope that the whole question of the business of this Committee and how these Bills are to be dealt with in the future shall be fully considered by Her Majesty's Government and the authorities of the House another session. I feel convinced that sooner or later this question will have to be taken into consideration, and although I offer no opposition in the present state of the business of the House this session, I do earnestly entreat the House to consider before

  1057
  another session commences whether some other means cannot be devised of dealing with those Police and Sanitary Clauses, so as to ensure the unanimity which is undoubtedly so desirable in these Bills, but at the same time without causing such an intolerable strain upon hon. Members as the present system does.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I wish to be allowed to say a very few words upon this motion. It has been put upon the Paper not only with full assent of the Committee over which I preside, but I must say also at their request. The position of the work of this Committee is quite extraordinary. It seems to be a very popular Committee, and we have got no less than twenty-one of the heaviest Private Bills before that Committee. We have to get those measures up to the House of Lords by the date fixed under the Sessional Order. Under these circumstances, I thought it my duty to communicate with the Chairman of Committees of this House. We went into the matter together, with the assistance of the House officials, and I am not in the least exaggerating when I tell the House that if the single Committee on these Bills sat every day in the week we should be here in the middle of August. We were not prepared to sit continuously until the middle of August, and that is the reason why this motion was placed upon the Table by the responsible Minister. I entirely concur with what has fallen from my hon. friend the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. It will be absolutely necessary for the Government to consider the whole question of this Committee, and what has been said in the case of the Bradford Bill is a good illustration. The result of the Standing Order of the House is that every Bill which contains the very smallest proposal in that direction comes to this Committee, and we have to deal with the whole Bill. The result is that large corporations place all these matters in one large Bill and this unfortunate Committee has to deal with them all.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,: No less than twenty Bills have been sent to this Committee, and therefore the work cannot be got through. A similar motion
  1058
  to this was made in 1892, when a similar state of things existed, and the motion then passed. We fully recognise all the objections which my hon. friend has made, for it is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that the whole composition of this Committee shall be considered another session with a view of unloading the Committee of such work, or making such other alterations as will make the work lighter. That is not possible this session, and this is but an emergency motion which is quite necessary.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Would it not be possible to devise a plan whereby at the commencement of each session the authorities of the House should eliminate from all Private Bills the Police and Sanitary Clauses? Those only might be submitted to the Committee, leaving the remaining portions of the Bills to be dealt with by Select Committees in the ordinary way.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Might I suggest to my right hon. friend that he should nominate three members instead of two, because one member of the Committee is very unwell, and I understand that he will not be able to attend for some time.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That would be in the nature of opposition, and would involve postponement of the motion i until to-morrow.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do add Two Members to the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills; that they do divide the Committee, so augmented, into two Committees, and from time to time apportion the Bills committed to the original Committee and not already disposed of between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the orders and instructions in force in the case of the undivided Committee.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum of each Committee.—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of

  1059
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Blackpool, St. Anne's, and Lytham Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Queen's consent and Prince of Wales's consent signified; read the third time, and passed.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    EXMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords].
      LONDON COUNTY TRAMWAYS (No. 1) BILL.
      Read a second time, and committed.
  GUN BARREL PROOF ACT, 1868, AMEND- MENT BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  "To continue the powers for the making of and to extend the time limited for the completion of certain works authorised by the Bray Township Act, 1890, namely, the Promenade Pier and landing stage thereby authorised; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.

  KNOTT END RAILWAY BILL.
  Order [20th March] that the Knott End Railway Bill be committed read, and discharged.
  Ordered, That the Bill be withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Ilkeston and Rothwell (Northampton), ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating
  1060
  to Ilkeston and Rothwell (Northampton)," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
  Mr. BALDWIN reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Thursday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  CHEAP TRAINS BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcudbright, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Gelligaer and Rhigos, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Stirling, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL
  Petitions in favour, from Stirling; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY BILL.
  Petitions for alteration, from Bridport; and Mere; to lie upon the Table.
  PETTY CUSTOMS ABOLITION (SCOT- LAND) BILL.
  Petitions against, from Newburgh; Alloa; and Elgin; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Darlington (two); Barrow - in - Furness; Kingston-upon-Hull; Barry; Kent; High Wycombe; Glossop; Lightcliffe; Finchley; Hull; Batley (two); Briston; Aspatria; Liverpool; Leeds; Wolverhampton; Newcastle; Macclesfield; and Street (three); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL AND SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petition in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Queensferry; Alloa; Ecclefechan; Munlochy; Royal Parliamentary and Police Burghs of Scotland; Kingussie; Eyemouth; Hurlford; Whithorn; Stranraer; Biggar; Dundee; Ayr; Peterhead; and Perth: to lie upon the Table.
  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  Petition from Blaby, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTH- SHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Kent; Darlington (two); New Brancepeth; Newcastle; and Macclesfield; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM THREEFOLD OPTION (SCOTLAND) HILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Temperance Committee of the Church of Scotland; Dalbeattie; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Bridport, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE UNION FUNDS.
  Return [presented 4th May] to be printed. [No. 164.]
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
  Paper [presented 7th May] to be printed. [No. 165.]
  H.M.S. "DIADEM," ETC. (BOILERS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th February; Mr. William Allan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 166.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Temporary Laws.—Register of Temporary Laws for the Seventh Session, Twenty-sixth Parliament, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, pursuant to Report of the Select Committee on Expiring Laws in Session 1866; to be printed. [No. 167.]

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  MR. JACKSON: It is the opinion of the Committee on War Office Contracts, of which I am the chairman, that in order to ensure strict justice in our inquiry, it may be necessary to hear counsel on behalf of the parties interested. The Committee, being unable to hear Counsel without the consent of the House and without an order of the House, has requested me to seek from the House such power.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on War Office Contracts have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they may think fit."—(Mr. Jackson.)
  Mr. JAMES LOWTHER: I think this motion requires some consideration. The Committee consists of fifteen members and is to meet twice a week. That will not be the slightest good. If the House wants to get to the bottom of these contract scandals the Committee should be reduced to five members, and sit de die in diem until the work is done. If this Committee is going to sit only twice a week for a limited period, and hear counsel, I think it will become an absolute farce.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 115.)

  AYES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fry, Lewis

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Garfit, William

  Myers, William Henry

  Asher, Alexander

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Gladstone, Rt. hon. H. John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Greene, Hn. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Penn, John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gunter, Colonel

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Baldwin, Afred

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Pilkington, Rich (Lancs Newt'n)

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pilkington, Sir G. A.(Lancs, SW)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Harwood, George

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Heath, James

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Biddulph, Michael

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Hill, Sir Ed. Stock (Bristol)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Brassey, Albert

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Houston, R. P.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Howard, Joseph

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Butcher, John George

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Caldwell, James

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Sidebotton, William(Derbysh.)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. JA(Glasgow

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

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

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sir U

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.(Bir'm.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'fd Univ.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea)

  Thornburn, Sir Walter

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield)

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Long, Rt Hon Walter(Liverpool)

  Wallace, Robert

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lowe, Francis William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doughty, George

  M'Killop, James

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd)

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wyndham, George

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

  More, Robert Jasper (Shrops.)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Finch, George H.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Younger, William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  NOES.

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

  Birrell, Augustine

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Colville, John

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo S.)

  Baker, Sir John

  Burns, John

  Daly, James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Burt, Thomas

  Dewar, Arthur

  Billson, Alfred

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon, Sir. Charles

  1064

  1065

  Dillon, John

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Doogan, P. C.

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

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Dorrington, Sir John Edward

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Spicer, Albert

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Steadman, William Charles

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maddison, Fred.

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mather, William

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E)

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Monk, Charles James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

  Gold, Charles

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Wason, Eugene

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Whiteley, George(Stockport)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norf')

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Wilson, Jos. H (Middlesbrough)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Price, Robert John

  Woods, Samuel

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. James Lowther and Mr. Strachey.

  Langley, Batty

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Leng, Sir John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. JACKSON: I beg to move "That the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on Public Departments, etc., of 1873–74 be referred to the Select Committee on War Office Contracts." In 1873–74 a Select Committee was appointed by the House which took a great deal of evidence with reference to certain contracts made by the War Office, and the Select Committee now sitting think it would be of great service to them to have the Report of that Committee, and the evidence then taken, referred to them.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to one Committee that went very extensively into this whole matter and exposed any number of flagrant contracts.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not relevant. If the hon. Member wishes at any time to move that certain other Papers be referred to the Select Committee he can do so.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I simply wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee to which I referred was that which inquired into commissariat and transport in the Egyptian War, and which dealt with subjects entirely germane to the investigations of this Committee, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to refer some Papers I would suggest that he should also refer the Report of and evidence taken by that Committee.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Would it not be better to add to the motion "or
  1066
  any other documents that they may think fit to call for"?
  MR. SPEAKER: This is a common form; the House had better not adopt a new form.
  MR. DILLON: I think I am entitled to ask for some explanation of the reasons for moving this. I have not sat on many Committees, although I have been a long time in the House of Commons, but I do know it is within the power of any Committee to take into consideration the minutes of evidence and Reports of any previous Committee. That being the case, where is the necessity of the House passing a resolution referring a certain body of evidence and Report to this Committee? What is the object of it?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I cannot understand what advantage there can be in certain evidence and Reports being referred to the Committee, because the evidence and Reports of every Committee are open to Members of the House. I assume there is some purpose in the resolution. Is it to act in the nature of an Instruction to the Committee? Is it to give the Committee some power which without it they would not have? If so, I think it is doubtful whether the resolution is wide enough. On the other hand, is the resolution a suggestion which limits the Committee? It seems to me it is a distinct intimation to them to limit their consideration to that special Report and evidence. I certainly can see no reason for passing it, and unless the resolution is made more general, or some further ex-

  1067
  planation is given of it, I shall feel bound to vote against it.
  MR. SPEAKER: This is a very usual application, made in quite a common form. It is generally simply handed in at the Table and put on the minutes as a matter of course. It is quite true that hon. Members may obtain and read copies of Reports which have been printed, but a Committee, as a Committee, cannot take notice of them and have them before them as evidence unless an order of this kind is made. It is a matter of common form, which is gone through constantly in respect of Private Bills.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I take it any Member of the House can move a resolution to refer to any Committee any document he may think fit?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is so.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the rule for a Parliamentary Committee to take power generally to have documents before it, and not to specify particular Papers? We do not want the precedent of the South African Committee to be repeated.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Has not the Committee already got power to send for persons, Papers, and Reports? This motion indicates only one Report. I want them to have any Reports that may be thought desirable.
  MR. JACKSON: The only object is to obtain the information which was obtained by a previous Committee. The Committee on War Office Contracts are under the impression that the only way in which they can secure the obtaining of the information is to ask the House to refer to them the Papers specified. There is no other object in the motion.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I wish to ask whether the Chairman of the Committee and his colleagues have not power to send for any records they think fit.
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I presume so, though I have not seen the Order of reference, but when a Committee wishes to have before it the proceedings of a previous Committee it has always been
  1068
  the custom to make such an Order. The usual course has been followed in this case.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: And it has this practical effect, that the Stationery Office is enabled to supply every member of the Committee with copies of the documents.
  MR. WEIR: The motion for the appointment of this Committee contained these words—"The Committee shall have power to send for persons, Papers, and documents." I am at a loss to understand why this motion is made. [VOICES: Agreed!]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Don't shout him down.
  MR. WEIR: Seeing that the Committee already have power to send for Papers, I am at a loss to understand why this demand is made in this way for these specific documents.
  Ordered, That the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on Public Departments (Purchases, etc.), 1873–4, be referred to the Select Committee on War Office Contracts.—(Mr. Jackson.)

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  MR. HOUSTON: I beg leave to trespass upon the time of the House for a few moments in order to mention a personal matter which, I think, deserves the attention of the House. It has been a matter of public knowledge for some time past that the British and South American Steam Navigation Company, Limited, of which I am chairman, has had contracts with the Government; and I presume it was owing to my special knowledge of the subjects to be dealt with that I was appointed a member of the Select Committee to inquire into the alleged frauds perpetrated on the War Office. It was certainly in that belief that I consented to sit on the Committee. This morning I received a letter, a copy of which, I understand, has been addressed to every Member of the House, I from a firm of solicitors representing

  1069
  one of the parties alleged to have committed fraud upon the War Office. Immediately on the assembling of the Select Committee this morning I called the attention of the Committee to the letter and tendered my resignation, for I would not for one moment allow it to be suggested, even by the writers of such a letter as this, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons is not an absolutely fair and impartial tribunal. It was pointed out to me by the chairman and other members of the Committee that, as I had been elected or appointed to the Committee by the House, whether I should be allowed to resign was a question for the House. I refrain from comment upon the letter beyond stating that the insinuations and statements contained therein are untrue. [An HON. MEMBER: Read the letter.] It is for the House to say whether I should read the letter or not; I believe a copy of the letter has been sent to every hon. Member. [Cries of "No, two!"] I will read one or two passages which I distinctly state are untrue. It is said that—
  "It was Mr. Houston—despite the fact that a board of officers at Tilbury passed the hay on the Manchester Port—who refused to allow the vessel to sail."
  That is absolutely untrue. The statement that I, or any other member of my firm, had any contracts with any Department of the Government is also untrue. The company of which I am chairman has had contracts with the Government Departments at the special invitation of those Departments. As to the allegations which the writers of the letter make, I have not heard a single word about them. Therefore I assume they only exist in the imagination of the writers. As I have no desire to sit upon the Committee, and certainly no object to gain by sitting upon it or retiring from it, I prefer to retire from it. At the same time, as I was appointed a member of the Committee by this House, it is only right to the House that I should place my resignation in their hands. I leave it unreservedly with hon. Members to decide whether I should continue to sit upon or retire from the Committee. At the same time, I assure hon. Members that whatever I can do to assist the investigations of the Committee in any capacity whatever I shall be only too pleased to do.
  MR. JACKSON: I think it is due to the hon. Member that I, as Chairman of
  1070
  the Select Committee, should at once state that at the commencement of the proceedings of the Committee this morning, the hon. Member for West Toxteth drew attention to the fact that the letter to which he has now referred had been circulated. The hon. Member desired to at once resign his membership of the Committee. It was pointed out to him by me and by other Members that as he had been nominated by the House the Committee had no power to discharge him from serving on the Committee. The hon. Gentleman then decided to take the course he has now taken—to make a personal explanation in the House. It is only fair to the hon. Gentleman I should say that that action was taken by the hon. Member immediately on the assembling of the Committee, and was not in any sense the result of any action taken by the Committee.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I think we ought to have the letter read at the Table of the House. I consider that the letter constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House. The hon. Member has my sympathy, and I think he has done quite right in bringing it before the House. I propose, if no one else does so, to hand the letter in at the Table, and move that it be read by the Clerk.
  MR. SPEAKER: It would not be regular simply to hand in the letter to be read at the Table without any intention of making a motion on it; but if the hon. Member desires to move that the words read at the Table constitute a broach of privilege, he will be quite in order in handing it in to be read.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I will do it.
  The HON. MEMBER then handed a copy of the letter.
  The CLERK at the Table then read the following—
  "Rees and Hindley, Solicitors.
  "43, Castle Street, Liverpool.
  "7th May, 1900.
  "Army Contract Scandals.
  "Dear Sir,—Below is copy letter of even date forwarded by us to Mr. Powell-Williams, M.P., herein:—'As you are aware, we act for Mr. John Brown, of Brunswick Street, Liver-pool, against whom allegations have been made with regard to the quality of hay supplied by him to Her Majesty's transports. Our client's

  1071
  extensive dealings with the War Office, and more particularly the circumstances connected with the hay shipped on her Majesty's transport "Manchester Port," will be a subject matter for inquiry by the Select Committee on Government Contracting recently appointed.' … Further, it was Mr. Houston, -despite the fact that a board of officers at Tilbury passed the hay on the 'Manchester Port'-who refused to allow the vessel to sail -it was chartered by you from him-until the hay had been unloaded. Why, therefore, should he, who has prejudged our client, be allowed to sit in biassed judgment upon him? We hope to examine him before the Committee, and it is common knowledge to yourself and ourselves that he will be an important witness."
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House. I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, a portion of the letter of Messrs. Rees and Hindley, solicitors, of Liverpool, reflecting upon the character of the hon. Member for West Toxteth, Liverpool, constitutes a
  breach of the privileges of this House." I wish to direct the attention of the House to the words particularly constituting a breach of privilege—
  "Why, therefore, should he who has prejudged our client be allowed to sit in biassed judgment on him?"
  These words, in my opinion, constitute as gross a breach of the privileges of the House as has, perhaps, ever been brought before it. I beg formally to make this motion and leave the matter to the House to decide.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That, in the opinion of this House, the passages in the letter of Messrs. Rees and Hindley, read at the Table of the House, constitute a breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 100. (Division List No. 116.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Ed w. T.D.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Heath, James

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Crombie, John William

  Henderson, Alexander

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Hoare, Edward B. (Hampstead)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hogan, James Francis

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Howell, William Tudor

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Dilke, Right Hon. Sir Charles

  Hozier, Hn. James H. Cecil

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W., Leeds

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Doughty, George

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kimber, Henry

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Knowles, Lees

  Bethell, Commander

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Leng, Sir John

  Biddulph, Michael

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

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea)

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Finch, George H.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brassey, Albert

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Lowther, Rt. Hn James (Kent)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Garfit, William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Butcher, John George

  Gedge, Sydney

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Macdonna, John Cumming

  Carlile, William Walter

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

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

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Cavendish, V. CW. (Derbyshire)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Maple, Sir Jodn Blundell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gunter, Colonel

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Harwood, George

  Monk, Charles James

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

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

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Norton, Capt, Cecil William

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Wilson, Fred K. W. (Norfolk)

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

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

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

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Woods, Samuel

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

  Stanley, Sir Hy. M. (Lambeth)

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

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wylie, Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wyndham, George

  Rankin, Sir James

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. M'Kenna.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  NOES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Gold, Charles

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

  Asher, Alexander

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Pilkington, Sir Geo A (Lancs S W)

  Baker, Sir John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Price, Robert John

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Billson, Alfred

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Birrell, Augustine

  Howard, Joseph

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Runciman, Walter

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt. Hn Sir U

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Spicer, Albert

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Steadman, William Charles

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Strachey, Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Langley, Batty

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Colville, John

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Daly, James

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Killop, James

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Maddison, Fred.

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

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mather, William

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Southampton)

  Mendal, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hu'd'rst'd)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Morris, Samuel

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Oldroyd, Mark

  TELLEES FOR THE NOES—Mr. Kearley and Mr. Wallace.

  Fry, Lewis

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the passages in the letter of Messrs. Rees and Hindley, road at the Table of the House, constitute a breach of the Privileges of this House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The House will expect to be informed of the course the Leader of the House intends to pursue.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Is the right hon. Gentleman about to make a motion?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was going to ask a question, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot ask a question now of that kind. There is no question before the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is there power to move the adjournment?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is hardly a matter of "urgent public importance."
  SIR CHAELES DILKE: Is it the intention of the First Lord of the Treasury to give his guidance and advice to the House, now that the motion has been carried on which he did not give the House any advice, by moving that the persons who wrote the letter should attend the House on a given day?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to make a motion of that kind he is at liberty to do so.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I want to ask if the Government intend to make such a motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member is not at liberty to ask a question.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to move that Messrs. Rees and Hindley be ordered to attend at the Bar of the House on Thursday at three o'clock. The House has determined that the letter is a breach of privilege, and consequently the next step the House ought to take is to act upon that resolution according to the usual practice.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to second the motion. I regret that the whole of the letter was not read at the Table of the House. I think that the most offensive passages of the letter were not read to the House. There are imputations of unfair conduct in the appointment of the Committee, under which the House could not properly rest. In my opinion the House is very much indebted to the hon. Member for Kilkenny for bringing the question forward by way of a motion, and although I am conscious of the gravity of the step this House takes when it enters upon matters of privilege, and begins to exercise its undoubtedly large coercive powers, no one can doubt that when the House has passed such a resolution as has just been adopted it must follow up the action taken. I therefore beg leave to second the motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Messrs. Rees and Hindley do attend at the Bar of this House on Thursday next, at Three of the clock."— (Mr. James Lowther.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I did not quite anticipate my right hon. friend the Member for Thanet would have got us out of the difficulty in which we are in consequence of the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division having thought it desirable to call attention to this letter. There can be no doubt whatever in my judgment that, as the House has already affirmed, these solicitors have committed a breach of the privileges of the House, and though I do not think it was very wise, if I may say so, to raise this question, the question having been raised there was no alternative left to the House but to affirm, as it has affirmed, that a breach of privilege has been committed. But if we are asked to go further, as we are asked by my right hon. friend, whose motion was seconded by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, we enter into a very different order of ideas, and I should strongly advise the House, as I have advised it on previous occasions, not to enter, upon such provocation as this, on a course which, in my judgment, will not conduce either to the dignity of the House or to any great useful purpose. On 26th July, 1898* it appears that the same hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny, who has moved to-day, made a similar motion with regard to a breach of privilege by the Board of Guardians of Mullingar, who had attacked an hon. Member representing an Irish constituency for a speech he made in this House, and the House unanimously decided that it was a breach of privilege. I then advised the House that the cumbrous and antiquated machinery at our disposal for dealing with questions of this kind could not with advantage be put in motion. The House took the advice I then gave, and the matter was allowed to drop. I suggest now that it would be the best course, in our interest and in the public interest, that this very recent precedent should be followed on this occasion. The hon. Member opposite, with an authority which has almost
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxii., page 1343.

  1077
  become a habit of his, has called attention to words which constitute a breach of the privileges of the House. We have asserted that he is right, and, having made that assertion, I think we have done all that is necessary, and I beg to move, as an Amendment, "That this House do now proceed to the business of the day."
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House do now proceed to the business of the day.'"—(Mr. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has expressed himself as being exceedingly desirous, and no one can doubt that he must be desirous, to maintain the dignity of the House and to avoid leading the House into, or advising the House to enter upon, any course inconsistent with its dignity. I cannot conceive any course less dignified than that which, and without his guidance, he has allowed the House to enter upon. A letter has been read at the Table which alleges that a certain Member of the House, if he was to serve on a certain Committee, would necessarily give a biassed judgment on the matter before the Committee. So far as I can understand the terms of the letter, that was the worst that was said of the hon. Gentleman. The House was then called upon to say that this was a breach of the privileges of Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman not only did not rise to give any advice to the House, but, to our universal astonishment, did not even look as if he meant to give any advice.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Unfortunately I was consulting the Clerk at the Table upon a point of order at the time the question was put, and I could not rise to address the House. Had I done so all I should have said would have been that, in my opinion, undoubtedly a breach of privilege was committed, and then I should have gone on to give the advice I have since given to the House. So that I do not suppose the loss is very great.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Of course I accept the explanation of the
  1078
  right hon. Gentleman that he was engaged in consulting with an officer of the House. I was under the impression he was in his place at the time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, no. Altogether wrong.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: At all events, the House has decided that this is a breach of privilege, and now we are to follow a course which apparently was taken on previous occasions and to be content with this solemn assertion that a breach of privilege has been committed; and then with great severity of countenance and in the most impressive manner we can assume we are to allow the matter to drop. The word "farcical" has been used. Anything more farcical than such a proceeding I cannot conceive. I am not a stickler for privilege, though I am not altogether disregardful of it; but of this I am certain, that if the House ever thinks it worth while to brand a statement as a breach of privilege, it might then, out of respect for its own dignity, follow up that statement in such way as the rules of Parliament prescribe. In this case what are we to do? Most of us on this side of the House do not think that this was a breach of privilege. The right hon. Gentleman, who thinks it was a breach of privilege, says he does not want anything more to be done. There might be some logic in our conduct if we on this side were to proceed to insist upon the further course that is necessary on the supposition that it is a breach of privilege, but we have just declared that, in our opinion, it is not a breach of privilege; and, in those circumstances, I am disposed myself to acquiesce in the advice given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. But I do deplore that this fresh instance has occurred of the way in which the House of Commons sometimes plays with its undoubted rights. The way to preserve those rights, and to preserve the respect of the country for those rights, is never to assert them unless you mean to carry them to their ultimate issue.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: We have had before us a very offensive and impertinent letter, which we have thought it right to brand as a breach of privilege Many people in this House think that it

  1079
  was a breach of privilege, and some think that it was not; but all must agree that in future we must make up our minds whether we are to call any document a breach of privilege at all, because if we are not in a position to do anything more than make our declaration a brutum fulmen, instead of adding to the dignity of this House we are simply making this august assembly ridiculous. I would point out to hon. Members that not many weeks ago an infinitely grosser breach of privilege was made by the St. James's Gazette. That newspaper charged a Member of this House with a criminal offence—with purchasing documents well knowing them to be stolen. Now, that charge was entirely ignored by the House, although it was an offence which, if proved, would have involved the expulsion of the Member from this House, and if not proved was the grossest breach of privilege possible to conceive. Now, although every Member of the House knew of that breach of privilege, not the slightest notice was taken of it, and I think it is ridiculous to make so much fuss about such a little matter as that brought before the House this afternoon, and to take no notice of that other infinitely grosser breach of privilege.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I cannot conceive how the Leader of the Opposition can bring himself to believe that this is not a breach of privilege. Whether it was wise or unwise to call attention to it is not to the point. A plainer case of breach of privilege has never been brought before the House than to charge an hon. Member—whether the charge is true or not true is not the question—with going on to a Committee to give a biassed opinion in the exercise of his Parliamentary duty, as a Member of this House, and in the name of this House. That it is a gross breach of privilege I cannot for one moment doubt. We are told we ought not to follow up the motion by any further action, because on a previous occasion of breach of privilege no further action was taken. That was a wholly different case. In the Mullingar case you were dealing with an elected board of guardians, and certain hon. Members said that the board did not really know what they were doing, and that if time were given them they would apologise. They did apologise, and that apology was informally communicated to and
  1080
  accepted by the House. But this is a totally different case, where there is grave public suspicion of public corruption. It seems to me that if ever such a matter should be followed up it ought to be in this case, when the first motion that a breach of privilege had been committed has been carried.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I agree with the Leader of the House that nothing more should be done in this case. If we are to inflict punishment for these offences we shall have to devise some other means than that of dragging a person to the Bar of this House in order that you, Mr. Speaker, should in solemn and weighty words inform him that he has committed a breach of privilege, and that the House is indignant and dissatisfied with him. In that process, so far as my experience goes, there is very little dignity to the proceedings of this House.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I rise to support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. The right hon. the Leader of the House referred to me as not having made this motion to bring the offender to the Bar myself, and as not having made such a motion on a previous occasion when I brought another breach of privilege before the House. I certainly intended to move the motion now under discussion, but left it to one of my hon. colleagues, who I thought could, from his superior knowledge of the rules of this House, deal with it better. It was not my intention to allow the matter to drop. In this case I think the House will be in a ridiculous position if it does not—having discovered the offenders—bring them to the Bar of the House. I remember a case when this power of the House to punish breach of privilege was, in my opinion, unfairly exercised, and as a result an hon. Member who sat on the opposite side of the House had to rise from his place and take his position at the Bar. But why should you treat differently two members of a firm of solicitors who have done what, to my mind, is worse than anything alleged against the Mullingar Board of Guardians? As was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, in that case we were dealing with a whole board of guardians; and it will be

  1081
  in the recollection of the House that I said on that occasion that I was prepared to move to bring the whole board here if they persisted in their threat to punish in a certain way the hon. Member for Roscommon for certain action of his in the discharge of his public duty in this House. The reason why I did not take the second step on that occasion was because the board had a notice of motion before it which was to be debated in a week from the date of my privilege motion, and at the suggestion of the Leader of the House —which had the advantage of your approval, Mr. Speaker—the matter was allowed to stand over for a week to see whether they would persevere with their resolution. As the board of guardians climbed down my purpose was served, and I did not persevere with the consequential motion to bring the offenders to the Bar. I can only say that if the House, having competently decided that this is a gross breach of the privileges of the House, is not going any further, then the next step should be to remove the rule altogether. I heartily support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I confess I am rather disappointed with the advice given to the House by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the House to consider very seriously, the position in which it is about to place itself if it follows that advice. Here is a Committee appointed to investigate certain charges against Army contractors, and it is a matter of the greatest consequence, especially at the present moment when the war is still going on, that that investigation should be thorough and complete. A charge is brought against a certain hon. Member of corruption. A respectable and very responsible firm of solicitors suggest that an hon. Member of this House is guilty of corruption in regard to certain Army contractors. They have embodied that charge in a circular which has been distributed amongst the Members of this House. That is undoubtedly a breach of privilege, and if true, a very gross libel. These gentlemen make their charge on their full responsibility, and knowing that if it is untrue they can be ruined by a libel action. I say it is a matter of great consequence when a Committee has been
  1082
  appointed that there should be no kind of attempt to hush up a matter of this sort. It is of the greatest possible importance to encourage evidence, and to give an opportunity to those charged with corruption in regard to the Army contracts of examining and cross-examining witnesses by counsel. We know that there has been corruption, but we also know that it is a most unpleasant public duty for anyone to come forward and bring these charges when the House goes out of its way to discourage them. It is all very well for hon. Members of this House to shelter themselves behind the bulwark of privilege, but this responsible firm of solicitors, knowing that they can be ruined by a libel action, still bring this charge of corruption against a Member of this House. Very well; I say there ought to be a full opportunity given to these gentlemen to justify their statement before this House. I know that they are perfectly prepared to do so. But what has the House done? Ex parte, and without any investigation, it says that this is a breach of privilege. Surely the next step is to give an opportunity to these gentlemen to justify their statement, and not to condemn them without hearing their defence. I submit that this is a matter of the greatest possible importance. I do think that this House should not place any obstacle in the way of a full and searching investigation of these charges, whether the man is a Member of this House or not. When charges of this character are brought forward, especially on the responsibility of persons of such position, I say the fullest possible fair play should be given to them. They have done it on their own responsibility, and it is only fair that they should be given an opportunity of stating their case to the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I confess that I am myself in considerable difficulty in this matter. I think that undoubtedly there has been a primâ facie breach of privilege, and it is the absolute duty of every Member of the House who regards the honour and dignity of the House to vote that this is a breach of privilege. Then comes another question upon which I shall ask you, Sir, whether I am stating the case correctly. A breach of privilege motion has been held over and over again to be only a preliminary step. The next step is, the House having condemned such and such an action to be a

  1083
  breach of privilege, that the primâ facie offender should be brought to the Bar. I voted for the motion on the faith that the parties concerned would be brought to the Bar and have an opportunity of justifying themselves, so that we might acquit them, if possible, of what is, prima facie, a breach of privilege. I would ask whether that is so or not. The precedents in my mind are very clear. One occurred on May 5th, 1887, when Mr. Gladstone said a breach of privilege motion was only passed by the House for the purpose of enabling the prima facie offenders to be brought before the House.* That view
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cccxiv., p. 988.
  was confirmed by Sir Charles Russell, now Lord Russell. We are doing these men the greatest wrong if we impute corruption to them, and do not give them the opportunity of defending themselves.
  MR. SPEAKER: All I can say, and all I ought to say, without going beyond my province, is that both the motion of the right hon. Member for Thanet and the Amendment are in order.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 139; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 117.)

  AYES.

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

  Harwood, George

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Helder, Augustus

  Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs S.W)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Hogan, James Francis

  Price, Robert John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rankin, Sir James

  Archdale Edward Mervyn

  Howell, William Tudor

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Ashton Thomas Gair

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Austin, M (Limerick, W.)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Baker, Sir John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Kimber, Henry

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Barnes, Frederick Gorell

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Lambert, George

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Billson, Alfred

  Langley Batty

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Birell, Augustine

  Leng, Sir John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesly

  Bowles, Captain H. F. (Mid'sex)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Spicer, Albert

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Lough Thomas

  Strachey, Edward

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Caldwell, James

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

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

  Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Colville, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)

  Crombie, John William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wallace, Robert

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Warner, Thos, Courtenay T.

  Daly, James

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Wason, Eugene

  Dewar, Arthur

  Mather, William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dillon, John

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Monk, Charles James

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morley, Rt. Hon John (Montrose)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

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

  Ellis, John Edward

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Woods, Samuel

  Finch, George H.

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Gold, Charles

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. James Lowther and Sir Charles Dilke.

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlin'ton)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Pease, Joseph Sir W. (Durham)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Philipps, John Wynford

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Arnold, Alfred

  Fitz Wygram, (General Sir F.)

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Foster Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

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

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Balwin, Alfred

  Fry, Lewis

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Garfit, William

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Barry, Rt. Hn A H Smith- (Hunts)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs. Newton)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bethell, Commander

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Biddulph, Michael

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Brassey, Albert

  Gunter, Colonel

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Robinson, Brooke

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Heath, James

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Burt, Thomas

  Henderson, Alexander

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Butcher, John George

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybridge)

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

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire)

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

  Howard, Joseph

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Steadman, William Charles

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kennaway, Rt Hn. Sir John H.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Knowles, Lees

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lafone, Alfred

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Curzon, Viscount

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans)

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Ta'nt'n)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Bir.)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Doughty, George

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

  Doxford, Sir W. Theodore

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W)

  Wyndham, George

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

  M'Killop, James

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Fison, Frederick William

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

  Words added.
  Resolved, That this House do now proceed to the Business of the Day.
  [LATER.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool has resigned his

  1087
  seat on the Select Committee on War Office contracts, and whether any steps will be taken to fill up the vacant place soon.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe it is the fact that my hon. friend has resigned, and if that is so, of course the vacancy will be filled up.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: At once?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUE: Yes.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: By the House, of course.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division is to be discharged.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I shall not move anything. If in the ordinary course an hon. Member desires to leave a Committee he puts down a motion.

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS.

    SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—BOER TREAT- MENT OF BRITISH WOUNDED.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the War Office have received any information from South Africa to the effect that British wounded have been shot in cold blood; and if not, whether steps will be taken to prevent the publication of placards containing unfounded accusations against the character of a people having no recognised representative in this country.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: We have no official confirmation of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and we have no authority over a newspaper placard.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Does not the Government possess the power of preventing the publication of insulting slanders upon foreign nations?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman knows well enough what our powers are; we can neither prevent newspapers slandering other nations nor ourselves.
    MR. DILLON: Is it not customary in Ireland for the police to tear down placards?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now debating the question.

    SETTLEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA OF VOLUNTEERS, ETC., AFTER THE WAR.
    SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government can make arrangements so that from the date of the cessation of hostilities all members of the yeomanry, volunteers, reservists, and others of Her Majesty's irregular forces now serving in South Africa may be permitted to remain should they desire, and be given free passes to return home at any time during two years.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be rather premature at present to come to any decision on the matter. I think my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War has already given my hon. friend a sympathetic answer on this subject,† which I endorse.
    SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE: I will repeat the question in another fortnight, and hope by then some decision will have been come to.

    VAAL KRANTZ DESPATCHES.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if any despatches have been received from Lord Roberts relating to the Vaal Krantz affair; and if so, whether the Government propose to publish them.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information to give the House on this subject.

    MAGERSFONTEIN ENGAGEMENT.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the 78th Highlanders, now the Seaforths, at the battle of Magersfontein had eight officers killed and twelve wounded, while 385 men were disabled, of whom 112 were killed, whether he can state
    † See pace 273 of this volume.

    1089
    who gave the order to the three Highland regiments, of which the Seaforths wore one, to march in quarter column distance in the dark without scouts or an advanced guard, against an enemy who was watching for them.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. WYNDHAM,: I have nothing to add to the information on this matter contained in the despatches published in the Gazette of 16th March.

    THE INNISKILLING FUSILIERS— PROMOTIONS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether two majors from other regiments who have not been in active service in the present war have been gazetted lieutenant-colonels of the Inniskilling Fusiliers, over the heads of the men who have fought in the Natal campaign; whether the gentlemen thus promoted are of scarcely longer standing in the Army than the officers of the Inniskillings to whom they have been preferred, one of whom is an officer of twenty-one years' service; and whether the importation of officers from other regiments will retard, if not destroy, the chances of promotion of Captain Jones, who was one of the three survivors out of the ten officers on the right on Pieter's Hill, and who commanded what remained of the almost annihilated regiment on the next morning.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Two officers were appointed from other regiments to command the two battalions of this regiment on the 27th January and the 21st March respectively. In respect to Captain Jones I cannot speculate on the effect these promotions may have on an officer who is seventh on the list.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I make no imputation on the officers, but was not one brought from India, and who had not been in South Africa at all?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That hardly arises out of my reply. The command of a battalion is a very important post, and in filling it we must be guided by the advice of the Army Board.

    CIVIL SERVICE VOLUNTEERS—CAMP INSTRUCTION.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to
    1090
    the Treasury if directions have been given to all the departments of Government that every facility is to be afforded to all Volunteers in the service of the State to discharge, without loss of pay or regular holiday, the duty laid upon them by the orders of the War Office to attend a camp of instruction this year for twenty-eight days, and in no case for less than fourteen; and if public notification can be made of the fact as an example to private employers.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews Burghs) (for Mr. HANBURY): Volunteers in the service of the State who apply for special leave in addition to ordinary leave will receive it (subject to the discretion of heads of departments) up to a maximum of a month, provided that their whole attendance in camp is not less than fourteen days or more than a month. During such special leave they will receive full civil and military pay for fourteen days and military pay for the remainder of the time. Volunteers who spend the whole or part of their ordinary leave in camp will receive during that leave their full civil and military pay.

    CIVIL SERVICE PROMOTIONS—CON- SIDERATION OF AUXILIARY FORCE SERVICE.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government will direct that weight in all Departments of the State is to be given in the appointment or promotion of any individual to efficient service in one of the auxiliary defensive forces.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Promotion in a Civil Service Department must, of course, in the main depend on the service with which the official is entrusted. I imagine that general ability, and especially proof of general capacity in performing some such important function as that to which my hon. friend refers, will not be left out of account.

    SIMON'S BAY DOCK ACCOMMODATION.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to explain what, if any, progress has been made towards providing dock accommodation for Her Majesty's ships at Simon's Bay.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: Tenders have been

    1091
    invited for the construction of the works sanctioned by the Act of last year, and are returnable on 3rd July next. It has been necessary to allow this time in order that contractors might visit Simon's Bay and make their inquiries as to labour, etc., on the spot. In the meantime the necessary land not already in the possession of the Government has either been acquired or is in process of being acquired.

    NEW SOUTH WALES—DEATH DUTIES BILL.
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is prepared to use his influence with the Government of New South Wales to induce them to withdraw their Death Duties Bill, No. 53, 1899, which has not yet received the sanction of the Crown.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: The Act has been assented to by the Governor, and is now in operation. No statement of any particular objections that may be felt in regard to it has been laid before me, but if I receive representations which appear to justify me in suggesting that it should be reconsidered by the Colonial Parliament, I will request the Governor to bring them under the notice of his Ministers.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Was the Bill assented to by the Governor on behalf of the Crown?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

    AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION BILL.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations with a view to the admission of Western Australia into the Australian Commonwealth as an original State have had a successful issue.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to anticipate now the statement I shall have to make on the introduction of the Federation Bill.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will that be on Monday?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.
    [LATER.]
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether I am right in inferring, from an interjection across the House, that the Australian Bill is to be introduced on Monday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I hope the Bill will be introduced by my right hon. friend on Monday, and I hope to be able to take the Second Reading on Monday week, if that is regarded as a convenient arrangement by the House.

    INDIAN CURRENCY—GOLD COINAGE.
    MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the total amount of gold coin put into circulation in India has yet reached the sum of one million sterling, and if the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce has made representations as to the scarcity of both gold and silver coinage in India.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,: The total amount of gold coin put into circulation in India on the 1st May was £667,649. It is stated in The Times of May 7th that the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce have made a representation to the Government of India on the subject of the coinage, but I have no official confirmation of that fact.

    INDIAN FAMINE—PROPOSED PARLIAMENTARY GRANT.
    MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the suggestion has been made to the Viceroy of India that he could get a national grant from England in aid of famine relief if he chose to apply for it; and, if so, why he has not acted on the suggestion.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I am not aware that any suggestion such as is described in my hon. friend's question has been made to the Viceroy of India.

    FAMINE RELIEF CAMPS.
    MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the outbreaks of epidemic disease in the Indian famine relief camps, whether official information shows that the allowance of food granted to famine-stricken patients has been found sufficient to

    1093
    strengthen them against the attacks of disease; and what is the value, stated as nearly as possible in English money, of the daily rations provided by Government for men, women and children:
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The local Governments and their officers are keeping careful watch as to the sufficiency of the relief wages in all districts; and instructions have been given by the Government that the wage rates should be raised at any work where they appeared inadequate to maintain the people in health. As was stated in my answer to a similar question by the hon. Member for Banff on the 1st March last—"The average daily wage cannot be stated in sterling, being based upon the current price of food in the district in question, and varying accordingly from week to week. The wage for an adult is the money equivalent of from 1½ to 2½ lb. of grain per diem."

    FEROZEPORE COURT-MARTIAL.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a report of the finding and sentence of a court-martial at Ferozepore on a conductor charged with taking bribes from a contractor; whether in the finding and sentence, confirmed by Sir Power Palmer, where the charges are usually printed, blanks appear in the Punjab Command Orders, so that it is not stated who offered the bribe, what firm tendered for the stores, or what the stores were; and whether, having regard to the recent publicity afforded in a similar case by the War Office, he will direct that the full particulars shall be made public in India, and, further, ascertain at whose instance the facts were suppressed.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: My attention has been called to the report of the court-martial referred to. Blanks do occur, as stated by my hon. friend. I will ask the Government of India to make inquiries and to inform me as to the reason for the omissions in question.

    INDIAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPART- MENT—CIVIL ENGINEERS.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now prepared, in accordance with his intimations in previous sessions, to lay upon the Table the correspondence
    1094
    between the Secretary of State and the Government of India in relation to the Indian Public Works Department, particularly in regard to memorials of 1889–90 from the civil engineers; and whether he will lay upon the Table the Government of India's despatch, P.W.D., No. 10 d 30/3/99.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: A correspondence on the subject of my hon. friend's question is still proceeding, and I am unable at present to say when I shall be able to lay papers on the Table of the House.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is prepared to grant as an unopposed Return Financial Letter No. 254, dated 20th July, 1899, from His Excellency the Governor General of India in Council.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The letter to which my hon. friend's question refers forms part of a correspondence which is at present incomplete. The document in question will form part of the correspondence published when completed.

    FINLAND—BRITISH CONSULATE.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Germany is represented in the Grand Duchy of Finland by a Consul General who is a German subject, while France maintains a paid Consul, who is a native of France; and whether, seeing that the tonnage of British ships trading to Finland surpasses the tonnage of any other country, he will take steps for the appointment of a British Consul in the Grand Duchy.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,: It is a fact that in the Grand Duchy of Finland Germany and France maintain paid Consulates, which are filled by officers who are Consuls de carriere, and therefore of German and French nationality. The question of the appointment of a salaried British Consul at Helsingfors is under consideration.

    S.S. "OILFIELD"—OUTRAGE BY TURKS IN THE BOSPHORUS.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the

    1095
    stranding of the steamship "Oilfield" in the Bosphorus on 5th December, 1899, when a number of Turks made a raid upon the vessel during the absence of her crew, and stole part of their clothes and effects; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to call the attention of the Ottoman Government to the matter, and claim compensation for the seamen's clothes and effects which were lost.
    MR. BRODRICK: No information has reached the Foreign Office of the occurrence to which the hon. Member calls attention, but Her Majesty's Consul at Constantinople will be instructed to furnish a report upon the case.

    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY—PONTY- POOL ROAD TIMEKEEPER'S OFFICE.
    MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the recent removal of the timekeeper's office at which the Great Western Railway goods guards have to sign on and off duty at Pontypool Road to another position; and, seeing that the yard is an extensive one, containing many miles of sidings, and that since the removal of the office to its present site all the men, numbering about 100, have to cross several junctions and sidings every time they visit the office, and frequently to creep under wagons, and that the men concerned have several times protested against the removal of the office to such a position (which protests have been ignored by the company), and that already many men have had escapes of injuries, is it possible for him to make such representations to the company as to cause the office to be removed to a less dangerous position.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I am informed by the Great Western Railway Company that some eight months ago the office in question was removed to a more convenient position in the yard. The company have explained the circumstances under which the change was made in a letter which I shall be very happy to show to the hon. Member. They do not admit that the alteration involves any increase in danger to the men.

    DISCHARGES OF CREWS ABROAD— S.S. "BRITANNIA."
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
    1096
    Trade whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the discharge of the crew of the British steamer "Britannia" at the Port of Pensacola, United States of America; whether he is aware that the crew objected to sail in the vessel in consequence of having an excessive deck load of nine feet of timber, the vessel having a list of eight degrees, that the court, consisting of the British Consul and two British shipmasters, ordered the men to be discharged, and that the men refused to sign their release from the ship; whether he is aware that, when the men went on board of the vessel to remove their clothes and effects, the captain caused the ten men to be arrested and imprisoned, he afterwards proceeding to sea without prosecuting any charge against them, and taking the whole of the men's clothes and effects; and whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to take any proceedings against the captain of the "Britannia" for taking his vessel to sea in an unseaworthy state.
    MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been called to the case of the "Britannia," and the Board of Trade have received the report of a properly constituted Naval Court held at Pensacola to investigate it. Prior to the holding of the Court the vessel was surveyed and found to be seaworthy. The result of the survey was communicated to the men, but they still refused to proceed with the ship. A Naval Court was then summoned, and as a result the men were ordered to be discharged from the ship, and to forfeit the balance of their wages to the owners by way of compensation for the detention of the vessel without due cause. With regard to the subsequent proceedings referred to in the question, the Board of Trade have no information, but a report has been asked for. In reply to the last paragraph of the question, I certainly do not intend to prosecute the master of the "Britannia" for taking the vessel to sea in an unseaworthy state, for, as I have said, she was on survey declared to be seaworthy.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Has a Naval Court power in such cases to order the forfeit of seamen's wages?
    MR. RITCHIE: I am informed that the Court has that power.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Does it not rest with the shipmasters?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given.

    TREATMENT OF SEAMEN AT IQUIQUE —THE "DALBLAIR."
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Iquique, who imprisoned a seaman, named Robert Gardener, for twenty-one days without trial before any tribunal; whether he is aware that, at the end of the voyage, the master of the sailing ship "Dalblair" deducted from Gardener's wages £9 to cover the cost of this imprisonment; whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to make any representations to the Foreign Office to have this Consul removed for his action, and to order the owners of the "Dalblair" to refund the wages deducted from Robert Gardener.
    MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been called by the hon. Member himself to the case of the "Dalblair," and the Consul at Iquique has boon requested to forward a report with regard to the circumstances so far as they came within his cognizance. So soon as a reply is received from the Consul a communication shall be sent to the hon. Member.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Has a Consular officer power to send seamen to prison without trial?
    MR. RITCHIE: I think the hon. Gentleman had better put legal questions on the Paper.

    S.S. "SOUTH CAMBRIA."
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the reason why the relatives of the men lost on the Cardiff steamship "South Cambria" have not received the wages due to these men at the time the vessel was lost, in August, 1899; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this case.
    MR. RITCHIE: The accounts of the wages in question were received at the Board of Trade to-day, and the claims of the relatives will be dealt with at once. I understand that the delay was caused by
    1098
    the difficulty of the owners in obtaining a complete list of the crew on board the vessel at the time of its loss.

    BOARDING OUT PAUPER CHILDREN.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention had been called to the difficulty, uncertainty, and expense of the only method by which boards of guardians can at present attempt to remove boarded out pauper children from the custody of unsatisfactory foster parents; and whether he proposes to bring in a Bill upon the subject.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,: There has been one case only to which my attention has been called where a board of guardians has experienced difficulty in connection with legal proceedings for the recovery of a boarded-out child, but the circumstances of that case appear to have been very exceptional and hardly sufficient to justify me in proposing new legislation. The question, however, which is raised by my hon. friend is important. I am disposed to think that if necessary, it can be met by an amendment of the Boarding-out Orders, and I will consider in the light of such further information as I can obtain whether such amendment would be desirable.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE ASSESSMENTS.
    MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the assessment of tithe rent-charge, assessment committees are entitled to refuse to deduct under the head of Usual Tenants Rates that part of the rate which is now paid by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,: Some inquiries on this subject have been addressed to the Local Government Board, but they have no authority to decide questions relating to the assessment of property, and it is their practice not to advise with regard to them. They have accordingly declined to answer questions on the particular point referred to. It is really a matter for the Courts to decide, and under the

    1099
    circumstances, my hon. friend will see that I should be ill-advised in expressing any opinion upon it.

    CARCASES OF DISEASED CATTLE.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, when cattle or sheep suffering from foot-and-mouth disease are slaughtered at the port of disembarkation by order of the Board of Agriculture, the meat of such animals is allowed to be sold for human food; and, if so, are the vendors allowed to charge for it the full price of untainted meat of animals that did not suffer from any disease; if it is not allowed to be sold as human food, can he say what is done with it; and what was done with the cargo of cattle recently seized and slaughtered at Deptford because they suffered from foot-and-mouth disease.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,: I am afraid that I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the similar question put by the hon. Member on this subject on the 9th ult.† As I then stated, the meat of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease has not hitherto been considered as being in consequence rendered unfit for human consumption, and I am not aware that such meat has been condemned by the sanitary authorities in any of the cases in which animals so affected have recently arrived at the Deptford Wharf.

    ASSIZE RECORDS — SOUTH-EASTERN CIRCUIT.
    LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the fact that by the Schedule of Public Records (South-Eastern Circuit) it is proposed to destroy documents existing, or in ordinary course about to exist, in the office of a clerk of assize; and whether, in view of the fact that this right of prospective destruction is only granted by the rules (30th Juno, 1890) and in no way contemplated by the Act (1877, c. 55), he will endeavour to check the practice, there being no limit to the number of schedules of such documents which may be presented to Parliament.
    † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], vol. lxxxi., page 1523.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The schedule of documents in the office of the clerk of assize of the home division of the South Eastern Circuit applies only to classes of documents already existing and clearly defined in the schedule, or to such as shall be similar in every particular to one of these classes, and which shall have attained the ages respectively specified in the second column of the schedule. It gives no right of prospective destruction of any documents the character of which is not strictly defined in the schedule. The present schedule closely corresponds to a schedule of documents in the office of the clerk of assize of the Oxford Circuit, which was laid before Parliament in 1890, in accordance with the rules then in force, which were the rules first formulated under the Public Record Office Act, 1877. The rules of 1890 were approved by Her Majesty in Council in accordance with the Act of 1877.
    LORD BALCARRES: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to answer a supplementary question?
    MR. ANSTRUTHER: Not without notice.

    POSTMEN'S STRIPES — MANCHESTER PARCELS POST OFFICE.
    MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if service as temporary sorting clerk prior to appointment as established postman is allowed to count for stripes; if so, why it has been refused to men in the Parcels Post Office, Manchester.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): Service as temporary sorting clerk prior to appointment as established postman does not count for stripes.

    EDINBURGH POST OFFICE—REVISION OF DUTIES.
    MR. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can say when the scheme of revision for the sorting branch of the Edinburgh Post Office, lately under the consideration of the Treasury, is likely to be authorised; and what is the cause of so much delay in the matter.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The scheme, which involves many details, is still under consideration, but a decision upon it will be come to very shortly.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS—ACCOMMODA- TION FOR MEMBERS.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in arranging for the future use of the rooms lately vacated by Sir Reginald Palgrave, he will consider the possibility of affording accommodation for conferences of Members with their constituents and others additional to that provided in the present conference rooms.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,: A certain number of the rooms in Sir Reginald Palgrave's late residence have already been appropriated; they would not. in my opinion, have been suitable for conference rooms. The further questions connected with the allocation of the space vacated in the recent changes are now under consideration, and every attention will be paid to the proposal made by the hon. Member, as well as to the suggestions put forward from other quarters.
    MR. COGHILL: Will some of the rooms be assigned for the use of the press?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Not yet. They could not be handed over during the session, as structural alterations would be involved. These are among the matters which I have alluded to as being under consideration.
    MR. COGHILL: Considering how short we are of accommodation here, could not the press find accommodation of their own on the other side of the road?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: If the hon. Member knew how many stairs members have to go up to reach these rooms he would not think them suitable.

    IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
    MR. WOLFF: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a resolution from the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, dated 30th May, 1899, accepting his suggestion relative to the establishment of a Consul-
    1102
    tative Committee on lighthouse works, and pressing their desire that, on the first vacancy occurring thereon, a representative of the North of Ireland should be co-opted on the Irish Lights Board; and seeing that such a vacancy has since occurred, and been filled by the co-option of a Dublin gentleman, if he will take steps to intimate to the Board of Irish Lights and the Commissioners of Northern Lights (Scotland) the advisability of their meeting the wishes of shipowners who pay the light dues, by the co-option of representative men to vacancies as they occur on those boards.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir, I have received the communication referred to. I have every reason to hope that advantage will follow from the establishment of the Consultative Committee, but I cannot undertake to interfere with the action of the Irish Lights Commissioners and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses in regard to a matter which is entirely within their discretion. I may, however, say that if they were to favourably consider the suggestion made by my hon. friend, they would, in my opinion, be acting wisely.

    IRISH PASSENGER STEAMERS—THE "SLIEVE BEARNAGH."
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Belfast and County Down Railway Company ran the s.s. "Slieve Bearnagh" for the conveyance of passengers from Kingstown to view the fleet during Her Majesty's visit to Dublin, and that the same steamer was run for the carriage of passengers between Belfast and Bangor on Good Friday, Saturday, and Easter Sunday and Monday; whether this vessel was provided with a passenger certificate on these occasions; and whether this particular railway company has legal authority for running passenger steamers from Kingstown, and from Belfast to Bangor.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. The vessel in question was surveyed and passed by the officers of the Board of Trade before she carried passengers on the occasions and between the ports stated, and although the certificates had not then been actually issued, the Board had telegraphed permission for her to ply.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: And as to the last paragraph of my question?
    MR. RITCHIE: My attention has not been particularly directed to that. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question.

    DUBLIN POST OFFICE AND THE QUEEN'S VISIT.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, seeing that the 4th of April, proclaimed a Bank holiday throughout the county and city of Dublin by the Privy Council, in honour of Her Majesty's visit to Ireland, was not observed as such in the sorting and other departments of the General Post Office in Dublin, whether it is the intention of the authorities to give sorting clerks and telegraphists and other Dublin Post office employees a day in lieu or payment at Bank holiday rates.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The day was observed as a Bank holiday in the Dublin Post Office, and as many of the staff as the exigencies of the service would admit of were granted a holiday, and a day's leave in lieu of the Bank holiday will be granted to those who were obliged to be on duty. It is not possible to close the post office entirely on a Bank holiday.

    DUBLIN SORTING OFFICE—SPLIT DUTIES.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Tweedmouth recommendation that officers performing split duties should be allowed an unbroken rest of nine clear hours in their own homes has yet been made effective in the Dublin Sorting Office; and, if not, could any definite statement be given as to when the recommendation will be applied, and if there is any reason for withholding it 60 long.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): It has not yet been practicable to give full effect to the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee as regards the sorting clerks at Dublin. The Postmaster General is afraid that it will not be practicable to give complete effect to them until the scheme introduced in 1898 is in full operation, by which the men
    1104
    engaged on sorting or telegraph work would in future perform both duties available to work on both sides. Sixty-eight men are at present working in both branches, and this number will be gradually increased. It is also hoped that it may shortly be practicable to further improve the early morning attendance in the sorting office.

    DONAGHADEE SEWERAGE WORKS— AREAS OF CHARGE.
    MR. BLAKISTON-HOUSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds the Local Government Board for Ireland, on the 15th of May, 1899, changed the area of charge for sewerage, etc., from the town and town parks of Comber, county Down (the area previously legally fixed), to that of Comber dispensary district; whether the town and town parks of Donaghadee are at present being fixed as the area of charge for their new sewerage scheme; and is there any reason for treating differently these two towns, of about the same size and in the same rural district of Newtownards, county Down.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,: The General Order referred to was made in consequence of the rating provisions of the Local Government Act, and after consulting the local authorities concerned. The area of charge for the proposed sewerage works at Donaghadee has not yet been fixed. Further particulars in relation to the matter are awaited from the district council.

    PUBLIC HEALTH CHARGES.
    MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will direct the Local Government Board to issue an order empowering district councils in Ireland to fix the area of charge for sinking a pump or other sanitary work in an electoral division as was the case with boards of guardians before the passing of the Local Government Act.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that there has been any change in the law of the kind indicated in the question, although it is true that the policy of the Local Government Board has been to fix

    1105
    an entire rural district as the area for small public health charges. This policy, in my opinion, is a wise one, and it received the approval of a large majority of the district councils in Ireland. But under the provisions of the Bill I am about to introduce, the entire rural district will only be made the area for such charges with the consent of the local authority.

    BALLYMONEY AND BALLYCASTLE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE COMMITTEES.
    MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that the rural districts of Ballymoney and Ballycastle have last year adopted the Irish Education Act of 1892, and have respectively appointed school attendance committees to the extent of one-half in each case as provided by Section 3 of the Act, if there is any reason for the delay on the part of the Commissioners of National Education to appoint the remaining half of each of such committees, and inasmuch as the Act cannot be enforced till this has been done, will stops be taken for an early appointment in these cases.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: As regards the Ballycastle Rural District the county council have not yet notified to the Commissioners any action taken by them for the appointment of a Committee. As regards the Ballymoney Rural District, the names of five persons appointed by the county council to form half the Committee for the District were received from the secretary to the council on the 7th March last. On the 9th March the secretary was asked for certain particulars regarding the persons appointed, and also to state whether the regulations required by the Act had been framed or adopted by the council. The necessary particulars were received subsequently, but the regulations have not yet been submitted by the county council for the approval of the Commissioners, as required by the Act. The Commissioners have, however, been in communication with their local inspector regarding the selection of suitable persons to form the second half of the Committee, but they must await the receipt of the regulations referred to before their appointments can be notified. It will thus be seen that there has not been any avoidable delay
    1106
    on the part of the Commissioners in making appointments in these cases.

    WINDGAP NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say why the salaries due to the teachers of the National Schools at Windgap, county Kilkenny, for the quarter ended 31st March last have not yet been paid, and when they will be paid.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUE: The salaries of the teaching staff of the boys school at Windgap for the period mentioned have been paid. In the case of the girls school the usual quarterly returns were not received by the Commissioners until the 17th ultimo. Payment could not then be made, as the manager omitted to furnish the necessary certificates as to the observance of the Commissioners' rules and the character of the teachers. The Returns having been sent back to the manager for completion were received on the 30th ultimo with qualified answers upon the points referred to. The salaries of the assistant teacher and monitor will be paid to-day. But the manager has not certified the claim of the principal teacher, whose salary cannot be paid pending further investigation by the Commissioners.

    GOVERNMENT SERVANTS AND POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER, on behalf of the Member for Dundee (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Treasury Minutes, regulating the conduct of the permanent Civil Service in reference to political controversies, have appeared in any Parliamentary Paper; and, if not, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House at an early date.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the Minute referred to by the hon. Gentle man is that of April, 1884, which has been laid on the Table of the House.

    DAMAGE TO CROPS BY SPARKS FROM RAILWAY ENGINES.
    MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that a large acreage of growing crops and plantations are annually destroyed by fires caused by sparks from railway engines, for which no

    1107
    compensation can be obtained by the farmers from the railway companies, while road traction engines are liable for any damage thus caused; and whether he can give facilities for the discussion of the short Bill now before the House to place railway engines and road locomotives on an equal footing in this respect, and to make railway companies responsible for the damage thus caused.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has no detailed information as to the question of damage done to crops and plantations by sparks from railway locomotives. But it does appear to me, as my hon. friend suggests, that there is a curious discrepancy between the law which applies to road locomotives and that which applies to railway engines, one being liable and the other not.
    MR. JEFFREYS: My right hon. friend has not said whether he will give me facilities for getting a small Bill through with regard to this matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hoped my hon. friend would probably be able to conjecture what fate must befall questions addressed to the Leader of the House asking for such facilities.
    SIR BLUNDELL MAPLE: Is it not the fact that the railways are still responsible for damage done, seeing that no rule has been laid down exempting them from liability?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps my hon. friend will put that question on the Paper. It relates to a matter on which I must take legal advice.

    ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) HILL.
    Reported, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., without Amendment.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 168.]
    Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 168.]
    Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

    STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
    Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR reported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had
    1108
    appointed Sir James Fergusson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Land Charges Bill [Lords].
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection that they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, Sir John Kinloch, and had appointed in substitution Sir William Wedderburn.
    Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee that they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Land Charges Bill [Lords]:—Mr. Bond, Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Channing, Mr. Drage, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. Hedderwick, Mr. Kimber, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Moon, Mr. Perks, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Purvis, Mr. Randell, and Mr. Skewes-Cox.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with regard to the Investment of Money paid into a County Court." [County Courts (Investment of Deposits) Bill [Lords.]
    NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
    Thomas Arthur Bramsdon, Esq., for Borough of Portsmouth; Sir John Batty Tuke, M.D., F.R.C.P.E., for Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews.
NEW BILLS.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND).
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,brought in a Bill to remove doubts respecting the powers of the Local Government Board for Ireland for determining the area on which certain expenses are to be chargeable. He said there had

  1109
  hitherto been some doubts on this matter, and it was better to settle it once for all by legislation.
  MR. DILLONsaid he understood the Bill was intended to safeguard the rights of the rural district councils, but if it did not do so to the fullest possible extent it would not be very popular in many parts of Ireland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to give some opportunity for discussing the Bill. He did not anticipate that there would be any opposition, but it was a matter they should understand before they consented to it.
  Bill to remove doubts respecting the powers of the Local Government Board for Ireland for determining the area on which certain expenses are to be chargeable, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To remove doubts respecting the powers of the Local Government Board for Ireland for determining the area on which certain expenses are to be chargeable," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

  COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND).
  MR. G. W. BALFOURbrought in a Bill to amend The County Surveyors (Ireland) Act, 1862. He said this was a non-contentious Bill. In the present state of the law, when a vacancy occurred among the county surveyors in Ireland, it appeared to be necessary to undergo an examination before the Civil Service Commissioners, whether the surveyor had previously undergone an examination or not. The Bill provided that where a person had proved his competence to the satisfaction of the Commissioners he should not be compelled to go through the ordeal a second time.
  Bill to amend The County Surveyors (Ireland) Act, 1862, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.

  COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend The County Surveyors (Ireland) Act, 1862," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
  SEWAGE AND DRAINAGE (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Bill to enable Local Authorities to deal separately with the Sewage and Drainage of their districts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephens, Sir Michael Foster, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Lawson Walton, Dr. Robert Ambrose, and Mr. Brynmor Jones.
  SEWAGE AND DRAINAGE (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
  "To enable Local Authorities to deal separately with the Sewage and Drainage of their districts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 23rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]

  DURATION OF SPEECHES IN PARLIA- MENT.
  [RESOLUTION.]
  MAJOR RASCHrose to call attention to the duration of speeches in the House of Commons, and to move—"That no speech (other than those delivered by Ministers or ox-Ministers, or by the mover of a Bill or Resolution) shall exceed twenty minutes in length." He said: I am not an old Parliamentary hand, but I would venture to suggest to hon. Members a drastic change in the procedure that has come down to this House from the days of William the Dutchman, when hon. Members first banded themselves into two parties. I am aware that any attempt to dam, in the Parliamentary sense, the flood of oratory which flows through this House is to attempt an almost impossible feat. It is like the attempt of Mrs. Partington, who endeavoured to keep out the Atlantic with a mop. But after all, we have our precedents and our hopes in this matter. Seven years ago Mr. Farmer Atkinson, the then Member for Boston, introduced a Bill with the best intentions, having short speeches for its object. The Bill was not a success, because in one of the clauses he had suggested that hon. Members who overstayed their time should be stopped by the senior clerk assistant at the table either ringing a bell or, I think, beating a drum. That suggestion was thought to be inconsistent with the respect due to Parliament, and the Bill came to a bad end. In 1896 I had the honour of introducing a Bill which was supported by the hon. Member for Walsall. It had for its object to limit the

  1111
  duration of speeches, and the motion for leave to introduce was carried by a majority of seventy, owing to the exertions of my hon. friend the Member for Battersea, whom I regret not to see in his place this evening. After that we decided to proceed by resolution, because we found that Bills were practically of no use. We obtained a quorum of gentlemen who were kind enough to hear us, and the resolution was carried by a majority of three to one. Then we thought we were in sight of the paradise we had hoped for, but we reckoned without our host, the representative of the Government on the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman, with that genial surprise we have sometimes seen on his face, said he had no idea how the resolution was going to be carried out, because it was not definite.* My hon. friends and myself have endeavoured to make this resolution so definite that the concentrated intelligence of the Treasury Bench rolled into one shall be under no misunderstanding. I wish to say a word for myself with respect to a letter written to the London press by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean a short time ago, in which he said that the mover of the resolution committed an atrocity himself by speaking an inordinate time. The right hon. Baronet was wrong. It was not I who made the long speech, it was the hon. Member who was good enough to second the resolution. Long speeches, of which a good many of us complain, are by no means of recent date. I find that in the days of Queen Elizabeth her Majesty ordered the faithful Commons to work more and talk less, on pain of being sent to the Clock Tower, or whatever was the receptacle for offending Members in those days.† Under the Stuarts in 1642 the debates were extremely prolonged, and
  * For discussion on the Duration of Speeches Bill, introduced by Major Rasch in 1896, see The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], vol. xxxvii., page 833. On the 11th May, 1897, Major Rasch moved "That the duration of Speeches in this House has increased, is increasing, and should be abated." This was carried on a Division by 85 votes to 24. (See vol. xlix., page 238; and for Mr. Balfour's observation as to carrying out the resolution, page 632.)
  † See The Parliamentary History, vol. i., page 765. On pages 859, 862, 891, and 909, there are caustic denunciations by Elizabeth of "superfluous speech," "verbosity and vain ostentations," "volubility," & c.
  1112
  the speeches were roseate, full of tropes and anecdotes and Latin quotations. One debate in 1642 killed two of your predecessors in the chair. During the debate an hon. Member, whose name has not been handed down to us, jumped up and said, "The House is empty, and so are our stomachs"—or he used a more conventional word than that—"I pray you, therefore, to adjourn the House for one hour." The Speaker, Mr. Chaloner Chute, was obdurate. He would not adjourn the debate. He became bad, and shortly afterwards died. The singular thing was that the Recorder of London, Sir Lislebone Long, who was appointed Speaker in place of Mr. Chute, became so indisposed after four days of this same debate that he was unable to sit further, and he also died within a few days. The next instance we have of long speeches in this House is in the Georgian era. That was when Mr. Sheridan spoke for five mortal hours on what was called the Begum case.* I fail to understand how he could talk to such an extent on a matter 7,000 miles from Westminster, but no doubt he was well paid for it. The result of the speech was that, according to contemporary accounts, the House was so discomposed that many of the Members wept, and the Leader of the House, Mr. Pitt, had to adjourn it in order to enable Members to regain their composure. When we come to later times we find that Sir Robert Peel addressed to the House an inordinate speech of three hours and three quarters on the Corn Laws.† He might as well have saved his breath and left the speech unsaid. Then in the Victorian era we find a lengthy speech by Lord Palmerston on Don Pacifico, which lasted for four hours and a half.‡ Then, coming down to our own times, we had the oration delivered by Mr. Biggar, the late Member for Cavan, who spoke on the Peace Pre-
  * 7th February, 1787. Sheridan spoke for fire hours and forty minutes. Pitt declared that the speech "surpassed all the eloquence of ancient and modern times," No complete report of it exists, but what affects to be "a faithful miniature of an unequalled original" is preserved in The Parliamentary History, vol. xxvi., page 274.
  † 9th February, 1842. See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], vol. lx., page 201.
  ‡Or, as Mr. Gladstone put it, "from the dusk of one day to the dawn of the next." See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], vol. cxii., page 380 (25th June, 1850).

  1113
  servation (Ireland) Act from five o'clock in the evening till nearly nine o'clock.* Latterly we have had speeches of considerable length. We had a speech from a right hon. Gentleman who spoke from three to four hours on a certain subject connected with the Local Government of Ireland. We had that terrible debate on the Financial Relations of Ireland, in which seven hon. Gentlemen occupied eight hours between them. We had a debate in which hon. and learned Gentlemen connected with the medical profession spoke for the whole evening on the subject of vaccination, and we had, only the other evening, a speech of a whole hour, made by an hon. and gallant Gentleman on the question of a bog in the Hebrides. That speech was characterised by the Lord Advocate as an outrage, and I certainly think it was something very like it. We had a speech of considerable length only the other night by an hon. Member, one of my colleagues in the representation of the Eastern Counties. He spoke for an hour and twenty-five minutes on the question of undersized fish, and he finished with a peroration which lasted for an hour and three minutes last night. That is not all. Four months ago the first Law Officer of the Crown spoke for six days without ceasing—that was in Paris on the Venezuelan Commission—a feat which I venture to compare with the labours of Hercules. There has been published a new book of the social life of Scotland. It is written by a gentleman called Murray, and it states that a minister spoke for a year and three months on a subject of controversy in a book called Exodus. I would recommend the perusal of that book to the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. A speech was delivered the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, at Birmingham, at a meeting where the Duke of Devonshire was present. The right hon. Gentleman said one of the best speeches he ever heard of was in six words. It was not the speech of single-speech Hamilton, of which we have heard so much. It was the speech of a gentleman who said, "I say ditto to Mr. Burke." We cannot all emulate the Secretary for the Colonies, but we can try to live up to that. I should like to put up a statue in the hall outside to the
  * 22nd April, 1875. See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], vol. ccxxiii., page 1451.
  1114
  gentleman who delivered that short speech. My sources of illustration are not by any means exhausted. In 1795 a deputation was introduced to the French Convention, and they came in with the cry, "Short speeches and the constitution of '93." Their method was to decapitate the Member who was addressing the House at the time, and to present the head to the Speaker. After that the deputation retired. It had an effect on the oratory of the French Convention, and especially on the gentleman himself who paid the penalty for it. Over fifty years ago Mr. Milner Gibson proposed that the speeches of hon. Members in this House should not exceed one hour. He said that if he had had his own way he would have made the limit forty minutes. He was seconded by no less a person than Mr. Cobden, and he was supported by Mr. Bright. These were past masters in the art of speaking and knew what they were about. The result was that, although they did their best, they were beaten by a majority of 20.* You would, under the circumstances, hardly call that a defeat. It is very much what we call a moral victory on either side of the House when we have the misfortune to lose an election. The London County Council has a time limit of fifteen minutes. In the London School Board the other day a Member moved that speeches should be cut down to ten minutes each. In the National Liberal Federation, to which I do not at present belong, the speeches of the members were cut down to ten minutes each. There is a place called the United Service Institution, in Whitehall, where a member, whether he be a veterinary surgeon or a Field-Marshal, has his speech cut down to ten minutes. If you happen to walk down Whitehall you come to a place called the Church House, to which I do not belong myself. At that Church House, although it is like flying in the face of Providence to move the closure on a dean or a bishop, yet it is done. The House of Commons and the Central Chamber of Agriculture are the only associations—if
  * Mr. Milner Gibson's Resolution was "That the speeches of Members be limited in duration to one hour, but that the introducers of original motions, and Ministers of the Crown speaking in reply, be exempted from this rule." The Resolution was defeated by 96 to 62. (See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], vol. cii., page 249.)

  1115
  I may call them by that name—where a time limit is not in force. At the Central Chamber of Agriculture, although the agriculturists and the bucolic gentlemen who attend are men of keen intellect and considerable penetration, they are not "stayers," and they do not speak very long. We all know that the procedure of this House is a little different from that. Of course, I know that there are grave objections to my proposal. One is that hon. Members in this House could not do better than was done by their predecessors one hundred years ago, and that what was good enough for them is good enough for us. Another objection is that it is no good having a time limit of twenty minutes or ten minutes, and that unless you have something very much shorter than that it is better to have nothing at all. With reference to the first objection I would say—and this is a quotation from the highest authority in this House—whereas fifty or a hundred years ago there were not so many Members who desired to speak, now there are fifty times as many Members who speak whenever they get an opportunity. Of course if ten Members make speeches, each of an hour's duration, we should be in the position referred to in the statement which, I confess, I have never understood, "where congregations ne'er break up and Sabbaths have no end." Hon. Members nowadays also have to do a great deal more than our predecessors did one hundred years ago. They have to introduce bills, move resolutions, and occasionally make speeches. Although very much opposed to occupying the time of the House, I myself had to introduce a Bill some time ago, to oblige my constituents, for the compulsory marking of Dutch shrimps. Of course it took up more or less of the time of the House. I know that in certain parts of the country—I am happy to say it does not exist in the eastern districts—there is a dossier in the columns of the local paper in which the doings of the Parliamentary representative are recorded, and, of course, an hon. Member is upon his self-defence to show something whether he likes it or not. The other objection to the resolution is that it is no good having a time limit of half an hour or twenty minutes. In this House you have to cut your coat according to your cloth and to take what you can get. As a rule you do not get very much. I
  1116
  would venture to appeal, if I may, to those great, wise, and eminent persons who occupy the two front benches of this House, and to assure them that our resolution has nothing to do with them. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] They will, of course, in the future be able to speak as often and just as long as they ever did before. If it did apply to Ministers or ex-Ministers not oven wild horses or bulls of Bashan would attract them into the same lobby with us. I would venture to suggest to the ordinary Members of the rank and file that no speech in this House ever alters a single vote. I would beg them to help us, and if they will slay what may be called the jabberwock they will go down to posterity as the promoters of the greatest reform that has ever taken place in the procedure of the House of Commons. I hope that hon. Members will remember—
  "Lives of great men all remind us
  We can make our lives sublime,
  And, departing, leave behind us
  Footprints on the sands of time."
  Hon. Members who vote for the resolution will leave footprints on the journals of the House.
  SIR A. ACLANDHOOD: I have pleasure in seconding the resolution. What my hon. and gallant friend desires to do is to bring the rhetorical artillery of the House up to date. He wishes to substitute a mobile quick-firing weapon for the somewhat ponderous and large-bore weapon now in use. I confess that as a Conservative, I view with some regret the removal of that ancient weapon to the limbo of the past. Of course I know that there must come a time when the change is inevitable, but I have pleasant recollections of the occasions on which we have held the Conservative breaches against progressive attacks until the clock struck the hour of midnight. I do feel regret at the loss of the weapon by which we could talk a Bill out. Circumstances change, and the composition of this House has undergone a change. We all want to speak now, and consequently the speeches ought to be shortened. This is a business assembly, and we are sent here to do the business of the country. Every session there are a certain number of measures put down which are carried if time permits, but I am perfectly aware

  1117
  that time never does permit, and when the annual massacre takes place the innocents are slaughtered. I think the whole of the Government programme in the Queen's Speech at the commencement of the session could be carried through. With regard to any given question there are only a limited number of ideas. The result is that three or four hon. Members use up those ideas, and those who follow must either use the old arguments over again, in which case they run the risk of being called to order, or they must dress up their arguments in such strange disguise that they themselves do not always recognise them. I shall never forget my experience of the debate on the Finance Act of 1894. Before the debate commenced I prepared what I thought was a rather interesting speech. For four days and nights I attempted to catch the late Speaker's eye. Every evening I returned home with my speech absolutely stripped naked, and every morning I redressed it. The result was that on the last night of the debate, when I did happen to get the chance of speaking at ten o'clock in the evening, I found to my horror I had appropriated one of the best points of my own leader who followed me in the debate. The number of ideas being so limited, it would be but fair if they were more equally divided amongst the Members of the House. I admit we should lose a certain number of old friends. We should lose that very courteous custom of always referring at the commencement of our speech to the speaker who immediately preceded us in the debate. Every one adopts that phrase, so as to give the idea of being impromptu to a speech which has been carefully prepared. Then another old friend, "I venture to assert, without the slightest fear of contradiction," would have to be given up, and I think the peroration would also have to go. We should miss these things at first, but we should be able on the whole to get on without them. On the county council to which I belong we have a ten-minute limit. We are a loquacious and very argumentative body, but, owing to the limit, we are always able to get through our business with expedition. I hope the House will adopt this motion. If they do I believe the debates will be shorter and brighter, and a great deal more business will be done.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That no Speech (other than those
  1118
  delivered by Ministers or ex-Ministers, or by the mover of a Bill or Resolution) shall exceed twenty minutes in length."—(Major Rasch.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I think there are two points on which everybody will be agreed—one is that, whatever may be thought of the plan recommended by my two hon. friends, the object they have in view, namely, the shortening of speeches, is in itself an excellent object; and the other is that the resolution could not have been presented to the House in two speeches which more admirably exemplify the conciseness, finish, and point which the mover and the seconder hope will be the result of the resolution. My hon. and gallant friend who moved the resolution gave us a short and cursory view of its history, and in the course of that view he brought against me a reproach which I may, perhaps, deserve, but which I do not think is a very severe one. He told me—I had forgotten the circumstance myself—that we had a debate on this subject a few years ago, that the House passed the resolution of which he was himself, I think, the proposer, and then in the innocence of his heart, either in that or in some subsequent session, he put a question to me asking whether the House had not agreed by resolution to the compulsory abbreviation of speeches, and if that was the case why the Government did not proceed to take action to carry out the resolution. My hon. friend is not nearly so innocent as he pretends to be. He is not so fresh in the ways of the House as he would have us suppose. He knows as well as I do that there are not two assemblies which differ so much as the House of Commons on a Tuesday afternoon and the House of Commons when a Bill is before it which is brought in by the Government, and which it must either accept, amend, or reject; and though I fear I have forgotten the fact that the House had already committed itself to the resolution, I think I may promise that, if ever a Government endeavours to embody in a statute the proposal my hon. friend has made, there will be a very large number of speeches made against it, and that they will not be confined to that magic limit of twenty minutes which he would impose. I entirely agree with both my hon. friends that not only would the House probably be a

  1119
  better business assembly, but that actual speakers in many cases would benefit by some limitation enforced either by rule or by public opinion. I am not alluding, of course, to those speeches humorously alluded to by the seconder of the motion, which are delivered to the House not for the purpose of promoting business, but for the purpose of obstruction; still less to those speeches which are not delivered with the object of defeating the progress of a Bill, to which they nominally refer, but which have an unacknowledged but obvious reference to some measure a little lower down on the Order Paper. We know that class of speech, Sir. [Laughter and ironical cheers.] I do not understand the tone of that cheer. I should almost conjecture that the hon. Member had never made a speech of that kind himself. No doubt speeches of that kind may be very usefully checked either by public opinion or by some rule such as my hon. friend desires should be enforced. But it is not those speeches only which I think would be improved by some limiting arrangement. Everybody must be familiar with the kind of speech in which the speaker has something interesting and novel to say to the House, some personal experience of his own bearing on the question, to which the House would be delighted to listen. It is, however, apparently impossible for him to give that particular illustration to the House without surrounding it, drowning it, overwhelming it by a repetition of arguments of which the House is altogether sick; and if he looks at the report in the newswaper the next day he will find that the reporters—at any rate this is my experience on the subject— familiar with the arguments in which the House took no interest, have reported them, as they are easy to report, but the new point in which the House really was interested is omitted altogether and is lost. I therefore often wonder why we are so short-sighted in our own interest as not to endeavour to give to the House that which it would be glad to have, instead of forcing down the throats of the wearied and reluctant hearers arguments which they know already by heart. It will be seen, therefore, that in spirit I am very much with my two hon. and gallant friends; but if they ask me whether I will go into the lobby to support them, I must say that for my own part I do not intend to take that course. It may seem
  1120
  very ungrateful, because I notice that I belong to that small and unpopular body which is specially excepted from my hon. and gallant friend's resolution. I understand the two Front Benches are by a special grace to be allowed to bore the House to any extent they please or the House can endure. I am grateful to my hon. friend for making this exception in our favour, but I am not sure that the motive that animated him is precisely complimentary to ourselves. I thought when I saw the resolution on the Paper that my hon. and gallant friend took a view of us that we certainly do not take of ourselves, that he thought that our speeches were of a peculiarly enlivening and instructive character, and therefore that their length might very well be extended to a duration not permitted to ordinary mortals. That is a very complimentary view to take, and I thought my hon. and gallant friend took that view of us; but his speech has thrown quite a different light on his motive. I understand now he thinks it best to proceed by degrees, and to buy the two Front Benches, by excepting them, to agree to the resolution, knowing very well that, when the unofficial Members of the House have consented to limit themselves, no very long time would elapse before they administer summary justice to those who occupy the two Front Benches. My real reasons for not voting with my hon. and gallant friend are twofold. In the first place, if I voted for him, he would with more reason than on the previous occasion appeal to me as to how I propose to carry out the resolution. But I have another reason. We all admit that a great many speeches delivered in this House are too long. Still, on the whole, the tendency, I believe, in recent times has been to diminish their length. When I came into the House I remember the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition thought they were not earning their salaries, or their prospective salaries, if they did not conclude long debates by speeches lasting for an hour and a half or longer. It may be, and very likely is that we are less eloquent than our predecessors, but I think Demosthenes himself, if he came down and spoke some night from half-past eleven to half-past one o'clock, would find a very wearied and possibly a not very respectful audience when he came

  1121
  to the end of his peroration. Even the Front Benches are not above learning by the natural progress of events and by the change of fashion and ideas, and the lessons we have learnt have not, I think, been thrown away on other Members of the House. It is true, as I have said, that we sometimes wish to have speeches cut down by a quarter or a half, or sometimes even by two-thirds, but, excluding speeches delivered, not to further debate, but to occupy time, I do not think that genuine speeches made for the elucidation of a subject are nearly as long as they used to be when I first came into the House; and undoubtedly if we were to attempt by some hard-and-fast rule of this kind, by some fixed limit, to put this House—I will not say reduce this House—but put this House on a level with the County Council or the other body to which my hon. friend referred, I think we should unconsciously introduce a wholly new spirit into our procedure. And until the liberty which from time immemorial the Members of this House have enjoyed in fixing the length of their speeches has become impossible longer to endure and wholly inconsistent with the proper progress of public business—until some dire necessity of that kind is driven in upon us by experience, I should be very sorry to see any breach of the traditions under which this House of Commons has so long flourished and which have so long been its glory.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am in the happy position of agreeing, not only with the general principles expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, but with almost every individual sentiment to which he gave utterance. There is nothing more remarkable, I think, within our own experience, than the tendency of the House to adopt more businesslike habits. I do not hesitate to declare myself a partisan, not only of short speeches, but of short debates, and I believe if the one and the other were reduced to a shorter limit than is at present observed, it would be a great advantage to us. While saying this, of course I reserve to myself the right of protesting at any moment, when I think that on some particular subject the leader of the House proposes to allow too short an opportunity for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the much
  1122
  shorter speeches that are made, especially from the two Front Benches, which are always regarded as the greatest sinners in this respect. Consider also the question of our debates. I remember the time when it was not considered decent for any considerable Government measure to occupy less than five nights discussion. Five nights debate was the regular allowance. It was not required so much by the ability of the Members for speaking, but it was considered due to the dignity of the subject that there should be this length of time devoted to it. And it was the same with individual speeches. I do not believe it was due either to the vanity or the natural prolixity or carelessness of the Members that these long speeches were made. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Leader of the House dealt with a subject in a speech of a couple of hours duration because it was considered the proper thing to do, and not because, poor man, he had any desire to do it. I observe that the hon. Member for East Somerset has taken this motion seriously, and proposes to substitute fifteen for twenty minutes. I think he somewhat misunderstands the intention of my two hon. friends who have brought this matter forward. I do not think they bind themselves to any particular nostrum, but they wish to progress in the direction of short speeches. It is remarkable, and it is an illustration of what I have been saying, that the remedy that has been proposed has gradually become more and more rigid. In 1849, I think I am right in saying, the proposal was that no speech should exceed an hour, and that was considered something terrible in the way of restriction. Mr. Milner Gibson, who made the motion, said if he had his own way he would have said forty minutes, but in deference to the feelings of some of his friends he said sixty minutes. The hon. Member for Southeast Essex began by proposing thirty minutes, but to-night he has reduced his limit to twenty. All this shows, I think, the recognition by my hon. friend and by the House generally of the necessity for shorter and shorter speeches. I have only one contribution to make to the discussion which, I think, has not been made yet. I am not a chemist, but I believe there are two kinds of analysis—there is a quantitative and qualitative—and if speeches are to be restricted in length let us be sure that we shall not lose in the

  1123
  quality of the matter to which we have to listen. I will frankly give to the House my own experience. It has not been a large one, but it was so striking as to startle myself. I have on one or two occasions been compelled to speak under the rule which we know as the ten minutes rule—a rule which prescribes that on the introduction of a Bill only a very short speech should be made. I believe there is nothing about ten minutes in the rule, but it means that only a short speech shall be made. Whenever I had to speak under that restriction—will the House believe it?—I found myself speaking with an effectiveness, a point, an energy and a brilliance which astonished no one a tenth part of the degree to which it astonished myself. When I had concluded the little exercise I wondered to myself what the reason was—whether it was my extreme knowledge of or my great interest in the subject—that I had, in my own judgment—which is generally, I think, in the case of all of us a pretty severe judgment — acquitted myself so admirably. I have found it was traceable to no other reason than that I was obliged to attempt to keep my wits sharply employed in what I was saying, not to waste words, but to come to the point; and I said what I had to say in the most terse and effective manner. I offer this little experience of mine as a consideration to hon. Members who may think that by a rule like this they would be deprived of a great privilege. I can assure them that not only would the business of the House be accelerated, but also that the quality of the speeches would be improved by the application of a rule such as this. I hesitate whether, having joined myself with the right hon. Gentleman in his sentiments, I should also take the course he is going to take. He is not going to support my hon. friend opposite. I think I must show some little divergence from the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, regarding a vote on this subject as a mere declaration of a pious opinion in favour of short speeches, I propose to go into the lobby in support of the motion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I shall not have the smallest hesitation in going into the opposite lobby to my right hon. friend who has just spoken. I differ from the motion proposed by the hon. and gallant
  1124
  Member not merely for the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but because I think the motion will destroy what I regard as one of the chief excellencies of this House—namely, the spontaneity and elasticity of its spirit and practice. I have an advantage which, perhaps, the hon. and gallant Gentleman and other Members of this House have not, in that I have watched the proceedings of other legislative assemblies in different parts of the world. I have attended several debates in the House of Representatives at Washington, and I have had some opportunities—not many, I acknowledge—of attending debates in the French Chamber of Deputies. I certainly attended those debates with an impartial mind as a visitor and an observer of the assemblies I have named, and I give this as my experience. The speaking may be more picturesque and more oratorical in those two legislatures; but of the three legislative bodies with which I have any acquaintance—and I do not know more—the only one which I will describe as being a debating assembly is the British House of Commons. I have seen this time rule tried in the House of Representatives at Washington. The hon. and gallant Member forgets that this rule is a two-edged weapon. It says that no speech, with certain exceptions, should be of longer duration than twenty minutes. The hon. and gallant Member altogether loses sight of the fact that one of the probable results of such a rule is that a great many speeches which might very well end at ten minutes would really be extended to twenty minutes. That is one of the effects of a cast iron rule of this kind, I will tell the House of a scene which I have myself witnessed in the House of Representatives, and also in the Senate at Washington. There they have this rule of allowing a certain length of time to the Members of the House—a rule which is laid down with the cast iron rigidity which is indeed common to many things in America, and which I regard as one of the defects of their constitution as compared with the constitution of this country. What I saw happen was this: A Member, say, had an hour under certain conditions; he calmly stopped at the end of forty minutes and then bestowed the remaining twenty minutes upon some other Member of the Legislature, with the result that the debate was

  1125
  made extremely artificial and lacked the spontaneity which is the chief characteristic of the debates of this House. I will give another instance. A small proposal was brought into the House of Representatives one day when I was present. The Bill was simply for the purpose of doing away with the rule as to the qualification of a man to be appointed as a police constable. In Washington there was an old rule which practically limited these appointments to old soldiers, a rule which one can easily understand after the heroic sacrifices made by the soldiers in the Civil War. But this proposal was brought in about thirty-five years after the Civil War ended, and anybody can plainly see that even an old soldier thirty years after the war might make a very inefficient police constable. The House will scarcely credit it, but upon that motion-which was a very small one—I heard the whole question of the Civil War discussed: whether the Republican party or the Democratic party had been right, and whether the Democrats or the Republicans really were the true patriots of the time. In other words, in the House of Representatives in America, with all respect to the brilliant oratory and the many great speakers there, the effect is to make speeches oratorical rather than debating, while the tendency in this House is to make the speeches debating rather than oratorical. I am jealous of any rule whatsoever which will threaten—and I believe the one before the House would—that very fundamental and supreme virtue of this assembly. The real truth is that my hon. friend mistakes a symptom for the disease. The disease of this House is not long speeches. I entirely agree with the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman as to the gradual curtailment of speeches in this House. I remember when two
  hours was regarded as a suitable period for an exordium, and the most serious business to follow. One of the best speeches I ever heard in my life was delivered between midnight and four o'clock in the morning by my hon. friend Mr. Sexton in the course of a discussion on a Crimes Bill, the progress of which he was trying to prevent in this House. Speeches have already been curtailed, and, as a matter of fact, if the House will seriously compare debates on different days of the week they will find that on one day of the week there is no necessity whatever for the motion of my hon. friend—I refer to the Wednesday sittings. Apart from the subjects brought in on Wednesdays, I maintain that this House is seen at its best from half-past two to half-past five o'clock. The real reason for the long speeches in this House is that a large number of them are delivered when most of the Members of the House are away, and when there is scarcely anyone to speak to except the representatives of the newspapers. I do not think, therefore, that it is in any cast-iron rule that this House will find a remedy.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I intend to vote for the resolution because I am a bimetallist. One of the most successful speeches I ever heard was made by an ex-Member of this House at a Bimetallic banquet. He had a toast to propose, and all he said was, "If speech be silvern, and silence be golden, then a short speech must be bimetallic"; he then proposed his toast and sat down; and, Sir, having said all that it is necessary for me to say, I will follow his example.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 91; Noes, 137. (Division List No. 118.)

  AYES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Coddington, Sir William

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Colville, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Baker, Sir John

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Crombie, John William

  Howarth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Billson, Alfred

  Denny, Colonel

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Birrell, Augustine

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Doughty, George

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Burns, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Caldwell, James

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Lambert, George

  Cawley, Frederick

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Leng, Sir John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)

  Ure, Alexander

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wallace, Robert

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs, S. W.)

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool)

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

  M'Killop, James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf.)

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Round, James

  Woods, Samuel

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

  Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Major Rasch and Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  NOES.

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

  Drucker, A.

  Monk, Charles James

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

  Asher, Alexander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hen.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Garfit, William

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Gedge, Sydney

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith- (Hunts)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

  Bethell, Commander

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Heath, James

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Helder, Augustus

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Burt, Thomas

  Henderson, Alexander

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Butcher, John George

  Herman-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Steadman William Charles

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

  Houston, R. P.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worcester)

  Knowles, Lees

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Daly, James

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Dillon, John

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Dermott, Patrick

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wylie, Alexander

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Wyndham, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. Lloyd-George.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maddison, Fred.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  COUNTY COUNCILS—TRANSFER OF POWERS —LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  [RESOLUTION.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEOEGE: Although the House has just
  1128
  decided against short speeches, I can assure hon. Members that I am not going to make a long speech, and I will undertake to limit myself to five minutes. I move the motion standing in my name, but I do not propose to press it to a

  1129
  division, and I formally move it in the hope that it will elicit from the President of the Local Government Board a favourable reply. I may say that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to receive a deputation on the subject. All I want is that a clause in the Act of 1888, passed by a Conservative Government, which has lain dormant up to the present, should be put into operation. Under this clause powers are conferred upon various Government departments of delegating portions of their powers to county councils. It is a very useful clause, and great expectations have been formed of it. Unfortunately, however, in England, although the Government are prepared to put this section into operation, the non-county boroughs have placed obstacles in the way of its use, but this does not apply in the case of Wales, where there is none of this rivalry and jealousy existing. I do not believe that there is in Wales a single non-county borough which objects to this section being applied, and I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman will allow us to make this experiment. The councils of Wales are unanimous upon this question, and the Welsh county councils have formed a kind of joint committee, each council nominating two or three delegates, and they met at Shrewsbury. It is a perfectly non-partisan movement, for the chairman of the Committee is a well known, highly respected, and influential Unionist in the Principality. This Committee is now framing its proposals, and all I have to ask the President of the Local Government Board is that he shall receive a deputation from that body, who will present their case to him, and let him know the sort of powers they wish should be delegated to these bodies. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
  Sir JOHN JENKINS: I have very much pleasure in seconding this motion. I agree with my hon. friend that the experiment is well worth trying, and I do not know that it can be better tried than by an application to Wales. The county councils of Wales are unanimous upon this question, and I trust that those who have opposed this proposal for England will not stand in the way of this experiment being tried in Wales. I hope the President of the Local Government Board will be good
  1130
  enough to receive a deputation, and if he does, I think that he will fall in with their views, and take steps to bring in a Bill dealing with the matter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is desirable the provision made by Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1888, for the transfer to county councils and joint committees of county councils of powers now vested in certain Government Departments should be put into operation forthwith; and, inasmuch as the Welsh county councils are unanimously desirous of obtaining such increased powers, and the obstacles opposed by the non-county boroughs in England to the effecting of such a transfer are not raised by the non-county boroughs of Wales, that it is expedient the experiment of such a transfer should first of all be made in Wales."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,: The hon. Member for Carnarvon spoke to me on this subject yesterday, and he led me to understand that if I was willing to receive a deputation representing Welsh county councils, who desire to put their views before me, he would not proceed with this motion. Repeating what I said then to the hon. Member, I say at once that I shall be very glad to receive the deputation, and the hon. Member may rely upon my best attention being given to their representations.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I only rise for the purpose of saying, as a Welsh Member, that I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for the spirit in which he has received this suggestion. The county councils of Wales are absolutely unanimous upon this subject, and I may say that it is not a party question at all, but it is purely a matter of administrative business. The county councils have worked well for the last eleven years, and they have shown their capacity in Wales to work together in regard to administrative questions, and they have shown how administrative business can be most effectively carried out. I think I am justified in saying that Welsh Members on both sides of the House support this motion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman

  1131
  the President of the Local Government Board, I beg to withdraw my motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN AS DIREC- TORS OF PUBLIC COMPANIES.
  [RESOLUTION.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will attempt, as far as I can, to follow the good example set me by the First Lord of the Treasury, and I will make a very short speech. The motion which I bring to the notice of the House is no novelty, for it is a well-known motion. Since the last occasion when this motion was before the House Lord Russell, the Lord Chief Justice, within the last month, has declared that the union of the two positions constitutes a perfect scandal in public life. The present Ministry affords a glaring instance of the union of incompatible positions, for of the Ministers who now sit on the Treasury Bench opposite no less than 52 per cent. are directors, while, taking the House as a whole, the percentage of ordinary company directors is only 30. It is a new feature even for this country to have hon. Members who have accepted company directorships even since they have become Ministers of the Crown, and this is a public scandal. I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite mean nothing wrong, but such a state of things is subject to the grossest misconception. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate—who is a director of three public companies—or the Secretary of the Board of Trade—who is a director of two public companies—is in charge of this question. This subject of commercial statesmen has been denounced by the Governments of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Rosebery. Having regard to incidents in connection with the contracts for the present war, and the influence of the Cabinet in reference to Stock Exchange transactions, the fact that Ministers of the Crown act as directors of public companies gives very good grounds of suspicion to the inference that this is a Stock Exchange Government promoting a Stock Exchange war for Stock Exchange purposes. I beg to move.
  MR. STEADMANseconded the motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the
  1132
  position of a Public Company Director is incompatible with the position of a Minister of the Crown, and the union of such offices is calculated to lower the dignity of public life."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,: Being a director who is not ashamed of his position, I think it is well that I should reply, and I will do so with as much brevity as the case permits. I am not going to detain the House with more than a suggestion of the difficulty of applying such a self-denying ordinance in the case where a company in name is really a private firm in its nature. Is a man, when he is a partner in a firm, fit to be a Minister, and the next day, on his firm becoming a company, does he become unfit to be a Minister? I will at once proceed to deal with the ordinary public company. The hon. Member has not brought any direct charge of corruption, and probably he would be the first to say that it is very far from his thoughts that any member of the present Government would be guilty of any such thing.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear!
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: But, at the same time, while I say and acknowledge this, I really do not know what is the meaning of the observation which the hon. Member made about Stock Exchange transactions. If that observation did not point to corruption it was mere rhetoric. It is suggested that when a member of the Government is a director of a public company Stock Exchange transactions would be facilitated. The hon. Member has been good enough to class me as a commercial Minister. It is true, as the hon. Member stated, that I am a director of an old-established insurance company and a railway company, but I do not know how this will facilitate such transactions. If the canker of corruption entered public life I could understand how a Cabinet Minister could manœuvre Stock Exchange transactions by being in possession of secret knowledge. If you had a case of that sort to deal with, the position of mere directors of companies would be only the fringe of the matter. But no such charge has been made in my time against any Member who has ever sat on the Front Bench. This proposition is

  1133
  based in the main upon two grounds: the first is that the position of a public company director is incompatible with [the position of a Minister of the Crown.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hoar, hear!
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: By incompatibility I presume the hon. Member means that there is a conflict of interests. There might be certain directorships which would involve a conflict of interests, and if there was such a directorship I am certain that nobody on this Government Bench would continue to hold such a directorship. Of course no Minister would continue to hold a directorship which brought him into contact with a Department of the Crown dealing with Government contracts. But in that matter you must, after all, trust to the honour and good sense of those sitting on this Bench. Upon the question of conflicting interests it must be remembered that the interests of shareholders are very much greater than the interests of directors. The interest of a director is pecuniarily nothing, and it is so small that it may be disregarded; but the interest of a shareholder is very often very great. It is not proposed that a Minister of the Crown is not to be allowed to hold any investments in any company for fear that his pecuniary interest might run athwart his public duty. The second proposition the hon. Member puts forward is that the union of two such offices is calculated to lower the dignity of public life.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear!
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The hon. Gentleman is a versatile Member of this House, and I have heard him discuss many subjects, but I confess with pleasurable surprise that I look forward to the prospect of hearing him as a guardian of public dignity. What fallacy underlies this? Is it a confusion of the directors of companies with the promoters of public companies? The two words are very different, but the hon. Member spoke not only of directors but also of promoters. I am not aware that any of the Ministers of the Crown are promoters of public companies. Of course, there are companies and companies. If Members on this bench were directors of bogus companies; if they allowed their names
  1134
  to be used in a prospectus to "catch flats," then I should say they were doing a thing very unworthy of the position they occupied. But no such charge has been made against us. As to the opinion of Lord Russell, I am not going to deal with what he said, because I have not seen his speech. All I can say is that there are many things which a Minister of the Crown might do in connection with a public company without doing anything which does not conduce to his dignity or to his position. There must be a discrimination made, and I think it is idle to confound, without any distinction, the position of persons who are directors in old - established and perfectly responsible concerns with those who have mixed themselves up with bogus companies, and who have acted as a sort of "flat catchers" with the public. I go further and say that it is an advantage to the public service that this Bench should have upon it—[An HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!]—I am stating my opinion, and the hon. Member by saying "Oh, oh!" will not alter it—men who have a certain cognisance of public affairs and business. If you are appointing a Royal Commission on any subject you appoint men who know something about it, and I feel that a great deal of our knowledge, such as it is, which we place at the service of the House so far as we can, has been learned by direct contact with great business concerns It has been said, Why not give up these directorships while in office? You cannot do it. It is easy enough to go in and out of a certain class of company, but with old-established companies it is quite impossible to expect to be able to do it. Seeing that there is practically no real abuse, and that there is no particular charge against any person, I think personally that this is really, if I may say so, a case of mock purity. It is perfectly impossible to avoid a theoretical conflict of interest, because what do we deal with in the House of Commons? We deal with the whole range of human affairs, and it is perfectly impossible to say in all the subjects we deal with that it would not be possible for the lines of contact to meet where they would mean conflict with personal interest. The only thing we can do is to have trust in a man's character, and so far as character is concerned there is no scandal alleged against any one of us. Un-less the House of Commons wants its affairs

  1135
  conducted by some body of secluded philosophers, it is a great deal better to have persons who do know something about business affairs, and who have practical business experience, and can utilise it for the benefit of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is a renewal of the discussion we had last year on, I think, the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech,* and the right lion. Gentleman has given the same reply that was then made to the arguments that were advanced on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman has very truly said that there is no idea of any scandal or any imputation of corruption, but what we say is that from two points of view the system is objectionable. In the first place, a Minister ought to give the whole of his time—that is, apart from his own private affairs— to the work which he has undertaken to do, and either he is neglecting his duty as a director—in which case he is not behaving very fairly to the business in which he professes to have a share in managing—or pro tanto he is neglecting his duty to the Crown and to the country. That is one view. But the other view is much more serious. It is this. We think that no one in a responsible position, such as a Cabinet Minister, ought to be publicly connected as a director with any institution whatever which might have interests differing from and conflicting with the public interest. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of himself as being a director in two or three companies. I rather think he is what is called an extraordinary director in one of the Scotch banks.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am an ordinary director.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then the right hon. Gentleman is a live director in a Scotch bank, and is not what is very stupidly called in Scotland an extraordinary director, who is merely a figurehead, and has nothing to do with business, a system which I hope will not continue much longer. The question is one of sentiment largely, no doubt, but we in this country have happily been free for two or three
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], vol. Ixvi., pages 971–996.
  1136
  generations from any imputation of mercenary motives or corrupt motives on the part of our public men, a thing which can be said of few other countries. This is a matter which, so far as it goes, at any rate gives rise to suspicion, and it is desirable to avoid the very appearance of suspicion so far as we possibly can. That a Member of Parliament or a Minister who has a great landed interest in some part of the country should become a railway director is a very admirable and proper thing, but if he assumes the position of a Cabinet Minister he should resign his directorship. The company would only be too glad to get him back again when he had a few months leisure from the affairs of State. There is no necessity why Ministers should continue to be directors or why they should not divest themselves formally of these obligations—they may be entanglements—in order to devote themselves to the duty which the Queen and Parliament expect of them. That is the whole question. It is a matter of sentiment, no doubt, but it is a sentiment which goes very deep. The Lord Advocate drew a very fine distinction when he stated that private business might be sometimes quite as much a tie upon a man in an undesirable way as a directorship. That is all very well, but the great body of the people would, I believe, be better satisfied in their minds if they knew that all the members of the Executive Government were free from anything which could possibly savour of suspicion.
  MR. WEIR: The Lord Advocate especially called attention to the companies in which he is interested, and I therefore feel entitled to make a few observations with regard to them. The right hon. Gentleman, although he receives a salary of £5,000 a year over and above his fees for contentious business, tells us that it is no matter that he is an ordinary director with a great amount of responsibility of the Bank of Scotland, the Great Northern Railway, and the Standard Life Insurance Company. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bank of Scotland has not to do with company promoters, whether it has not financial transactions with them, and whether the directors have not to be consulted in regard to such matters. The right hon. Gentleman talks of gaining experience in the busi-

  1137
  ness world, but I should have thought that, as a lawyer, he had a good chance of getting experience in the Courts as to how companies are managed and business is carried on. I regret very much indeed that right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench should be directors of public companies. In the last debate on this subject the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for evidence that anything ever went wrong. I call attention to one company that went wrong from which a member of the Government was receiving £5,000 a year. I refer to the English Bank of the River Plate, the shares of which are now of very little value. I maintain that a member of the Government receives a salary from the Government to do the work of the Government, and until all Ministers keep clear of public companies, suspicion will not disappear. The Lord Advocate has not only his own work to do in this House, but he has also the work of the Secretary for Scotland to attend to, in addition to the directorship of three commercial companies, and I say it is impossible for him, however energetic he may be, to give attention to all these matters. The first claim not only on the Lord Advocate, but on every member of the Government, is to do the work of the nation, and as long as they are members of the Government they should arrange to drop their directorships and take them up again if they wished, and if they were so hard up for fees, when the Government went out of office; but during their tenure of office let thorn stick to the interests for which they are paid.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Lord Advocate has told the House of Commons, in what I venture to say is a very serious matter, that if the resolution moved by my hon. friend is passed we shall be embarking on a career of mock purity that will in no sense be practical, and may be inquisitorial. I am rather sorry that the Lord Advocate has to-night ventured to take that view, especially with his knowledge of the conditions that weigh with judges and magistrates and members of town and county councils in connection with companies in which they happen to be personally interested either as directors or shareholders. I will deal with the mock purity argument first. I may be wrong, but I believe that, with all its faults, the
  1138
  British House of Commons is far and away the best legislative assembly in the world. It is rightly called the Mother of Parliaments, and I believe that the Mother of Parliaments should not, under the régime of company promoters and Ministerial directors, be made the mistress of monopoly. If it is mock purity that makes all of us jealous of the good name of the Mother of Parliaments as the freest, most disinterested, and most incorruptible body in the world, that is a kind of mock purity that ought rather to be encouraged than otherwise. Now I come to the impracticability of the motion. It cannot be urged that it is impracticable, because the last Government, thanks in no small measure to the moral courage and prescience of the late Mr. Gladstone, decided that whenever a Minister took a directorship that could be at all questioned he should have to choose between his private interests and his public service. Then as to the motion being inquisitorial, I do not think it is. When a man receives Her Majesty commission as a member of the Government he should concentrate practically all his time in the patient, diligent and honest discharge of his Ministerial work. If he wants money he should abandon the loaves and fishes of Cabinet rank. If he wants to acquire wealth let him stay out of Parliament, with Mr. Hooley and the other gentlemen who are anxious to get into Parliament in order that they may obtain political power to make still more money. We do not want Mr. Hooley or Mr. Bottomley in this House of Commons as private Members, but as public decoy ducks for financial schemes. If you allow Cabinet Ministers to take directorships the duties of which they cannot faithfully discharge as long as they hold office, then the dregs and scum of the Stock Exchange can gain admission also, especially when we know the directorships are given after election to Parliament for services rendered in this House to their companies and monopolies. Now I come to precedents. As one who has been before Her Majesty's Judges on several occasions, I must frankly say that the English judiciary is as able, as impartial, and as disinterested as any judiciary in the world. I say that because the closer I have got to Her Majesty's Judges, especially when I received a sentence, the more I approved of their ability and probity. But what does the law say

  1139
  with regard to judges? It says that judges are to be exempt from deciding cases in which they are either directly or remotely connected. There is one celebrated case, that of Lord Chancellor Cottenham, whose decision was reversed by Lord Campbell because he had a very small interest in the case he decided. If that be true of Judges and Lord Chancellors, it is equally true, or should be made true, of Members of Parliament. Let me come within the four walls of this House. What does Parliament do? We begin our proceedings every day with one of the finest pieces of pure English that one can listen to; the admirable prayer enjoining us to put private interest on one side and to subordinate private prejudice in the public interest. I want the First Lord of the Treasury to be more reverential than I am, and to interpret that prayer, not only in its spirit, but also in its letter. Then, again, take our Private Bill Committees. This House has passed a Standing Order of the most rigorous character, that all members of Committees on Private Bills shall be free from all local and personal interest in all Bills referred to them; and the effect of that has been that, short of the judiciary, there is no tribunal regarded with more respect and confidence and more entirely trusted than our Private Bill Committees. Why do they evoke respect and confidence? Simply because the House of Commons insists that all members shall be free from personal or local interest or prejudice, and every railway director or labour leader knows that he will get a fair hearing from these Committees, and that his case will be decided on its merits, and that no taint of suspicion is possible as regards their decision. Coming from the judiciary and our Private Bill Committees, we know that the London Municipal Corporation Act of 1835 contains a clause which is generally respected and adhered to, that no man can vote or speak on any subject in which he is directly or indirectly concerned; and the result is the undoubted honesty and straightforwardness of our municipal life. But let me go from public bodies to municipal corporations and companies themselves, and here we have a Daniel come to judgment. Under the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act we find that a director of Company A, who is also a member of Company B, is debarred from voting on any contract
  1140
  between the two companies. Even the London Stock Exchange shows Parliament an example and a precedent in this direction, because the Stock Exchange will not quote any company unless the directors are prohibited from taking an active interest in the affairs of another company in which they are also interested. If that be the position as regards the Stock Exchange, municipal corporations, Committees of this House, and our judiciary, surely it ought to apply also to our Cabinet Ministers. What are the facts? Twenty-five Ministers out of forty-four hold forty-one directorships. I am not complaining of their holding these positions as private individuals, but I say that such a number of directorships is incompatible with that public trust and confidence which holders of public office ought to evoke. I do not even question the financial bona fides of any of these companies, but this I do say, that either these companies, be they railway, gas, or water companies, are not getting value for the money paid to these Ministers as directors, or if the companies are getting value, the country is not getting value for the £2,000, £4,000, or £5,000 paid to them in salaries as Ministers of the Crown. The Lord Advocate, with that legal ingenuity which characterises the legal mind, especially in Scotland, said that we ought to bring forward cases and charges against individual Ministers. We do not want to do that, because if we start bringing personal charges against Ministers we reduce the debate to a low level and prevent ourselves from determining this question from the point of view of high principle. For instance, it is well known that the Duke of Devonshire, than whom politically and personally there are few better men in this country—indeed, I would rather go tiger hunting with the Duke of Devonshire than with all the South African millionaires rolled into one—is connected with one of the Naval armament companies who supply ironclads for our Navy. I make no complaint. Then again Lord Selborne is connected with the P. and O. Steamship Company. When Lord Selborne was in this House no one had greater admiration for him than I had, but I say that a company which receives something like £400,000 from the Government in the shape of subsidies for carrying mails ought not to have as a member of its

  1141
  board a Minister either in this House or in the other. Then I conic to railway directors. I make no complaint of the Home Secretary or the First Commissioner of Works for being railway directors. The companies with which they are connected are probably very good companies, but what I want to point out is this——
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I believe I am right in saying that the Duke of Devonshire resigned the directorship to which the hon. Member refers when he took office.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am delighted to hear it. It only gives additional point to my argument and emphasises the encomium which I ventured to pass on the Duke of Devonshire. What I wish to point out is this—that if you allow Ministers and Under Secretaries to belong to companies it encourages ordinary private Members to go in for company promoting and directorships to an extent which is discreditable. For instance, there are 586 Peers, and of these 435 are directors of companies. I do not want to take the House of Commons through the whole Hooley disclosures, or through the revelations in regard to Earl De la Warr, which reflected no great credit on him. Look at the effect on the telephone, railway, and water companies. The appetite grows with what it feeds on, and if Ministers are to be allowed to have forty-four directorships, the evil will increase. We have seen directors of water companies who are paid £1,000 or £2,000 voting on their own Bills after having said their prayers, and going the length of standing in the division lobby, and when Members come in and ask how to vote, saying, "Oh, it is against the London County Council vote for monopoly." Now, that is becoming a scandal. The Spectator, a competent and well-written journal, which has a true conception of the dignity of public life, says that there is a strong probability that if this sort of thing is not checked, we may witness an approach to such a condition of things that we can see in South Africa and elsewhere. Coming from that paper to the Financial News, facilis descensus Averni. The present is essentially a time when members of the Government should not leave themselves open to the breath of suspicion that they are personally interested in trading
  1142
  concerns. The telephone debates in which Directors take a conspicuous part in this House are becoming a perfect scandal.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing another question—namely, the well-known rule of the House which prohibits Members from voting on matters in which they are interested. The resolution before the House refers to the question of the holding of directorships by Ministers.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to point out that the encouragement given in high places to financial log-rolling is such that we shall have this House losing its just reputation. To what extent that encouragement is given in high places can be seen by anyone who reads the papers, like the Birmingham Post and the Investors' Review. When the telephones or the low-flash oil come on for debate the lobbying has become a perfect scandal. The Whitehall Review for August, 1899, said that "last session lobbying had become not so much a line art as a perfect scandal." Now, I do not know whether that statement in the Whitehall Review is true or not, or the statements contained in the Birmingham Post—than which no paper has a more competent and excellent representative in this House; but this I do know, that last year when the Low Flash Oil Bill and the Telephone Bill came on for discussion the lobby of the House of Commons was crowded by men who ought not to have been there. I know that pressure was brought to bear on hon. Members in the inside lobby by men who ought not to have been within the precincts of the House at all. I know that these financial touts and commercial tide-waiters are encouraged to do their dirty work, derogatory to the character of British public life, because we allow Ministers to hold directorships. It is because I am jealous of the honour of this House that I support this resolution. It is the poor man who should support such a resolution, because poor men, as a rule, are unjustly accused of lending themselves to this kind of thing. I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury, in these days when people outside are not so keenly interested in politics and Parliamentary life, not to still further slacken their interest by allowing it to be said, as it can be said, that directly a man comes into this

  1143
  House, or is nominated by Her Majesty to a high position, he is at once, pounced upon to subserve the private interests of this company or that company, instead of the public interest. I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to do no more than Mr. Gladstone did to discourage guineapiggery, and to make every Minister con-

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS AND OTHERS) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
  Notice taken that forty Members were
  centrate all his spare time on the duties of his office. I have much pleasure in supporting the Resolution.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 71; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 119.)

  AYES.

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

  Dunn, Sir William

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Baker, Sir John

  Gurdon, Sir Win. Brampton

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hazell, Walter

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hogan, James Francis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Brigg, John

  Jones, William(Carnarvonsh'e)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

  Burns, John

  Langley, Batty

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Burt, Thomas

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accring'n)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ure, Alexander

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Weir, James Galloway

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Colville, John

  MacDonnell, Dr M.A.(Queens C

  Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Crae, George

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

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Daly, James

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson, J. H.(Middlesbrough)

  Dewar, Arthur

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Woods, Samuel

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Maddison, Fred

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dillon, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. MacNeill and Mr. Steadman.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Pickard, Benjamin

  NOES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Flower, Ernest

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Garfit, William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gedge, Sydney

  Pilkington, R.(Lancs, Newton)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Purvis, Robert

  Baird, John George Alex.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Eldon

  Richardson, Sir Thos (Hartlep')

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

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson

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

  Green. W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Bethell, Commander

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

  Sidebottom,T. Harrop (Stalybr)

  Bhownaggree. Sir M. M.

  Hornby. Sir William Henry

  Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Houston, R. P.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

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

  Knowles, Lees

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Waller

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm H.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Maclver, David Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doughty, George

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hon E. R.(Batch)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  M'Killop, James

  Young, Commander (Berks. E.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Finch, George H.

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Parker Smith and Mr. Charles Murray.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morton, Arthur H.A(Deptford)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute)

  not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present,
  The House was adjourned at ten minutes before Nine of the clock, till To-morrow.

The Earl Manvers sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  SOUTH ESSEX WATER BOARD HILL [H.L.]
  A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  BUENOS AYRES AND ROSARIO RAILWAY.
  Petition of the Buenos Ayres and Rosario Railway Company, Limited, under their common seal, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to amend and extend the Memorandum of Association of the Buenos Ayres and Rosario Railway Company, Limited, with reference to the acquisition of railways, and for ether purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto. Read, and referred to the Examiners.
GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAIL- WAY COMPANY BILL.
  BRAY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

    LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.] (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PRO- VISION.)
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H. L.]. (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.)
    Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.

    NEATH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
    The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
    TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Reported with Amendments.
BREWERY AND COMMERCIAL INVEST- MENT TRUST, LIMITED, BILL [H.L.]
  SCOTTISH AMERICAN INVESTMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, BILL [H.L.]
    BRISTOL WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Reported with Amendments.
  BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House, That the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on the 15th March last discharged, and Bill committed.
  CHARING CROSS, HUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
    GLASTONBURY CORPORATION GAS BILL.
    Read 2a, and committed.
    WELLINGBOROUGH AND DISTRICT TRAMROADS BILL.
    Read 2 a and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
    CHESHIRE LINES COMMITTEE BILL.
    Read 3a and passed.
ABERDEEN CORPORATION TRAM- WAYS BILL.
  LEE CONSERVANCY BILL.
    MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
    SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  MARGATE CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]

    MARGATE PIER AND HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
    RAMSGATE CORPORATION IMPROVEMENTS BILL [H. L.].
    WESTGATE AND BIRCHTNGTON WATER BILL [H. L.].
    SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H. L.].
    SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H. L.].
    FOLKESTONE, SANDGATE, ANDHYTHE TRAMROADS BILL [H. L.].
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Wandsworth be proposed

    999
    to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Glenesk. Read, and agreed to.

GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]

    CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    MUIRKIRK, MAUCHLINE, AND DAL MELLINGTON RAILWAYS (ABANDONMENT) BILL [H L.]
    MOTHERWELL AND BELLSHTLL RAIL WAY BILL [H. L.].
    GLASGOW BUILDING REGULATIONS BILL [H. L.].
    GLASGOW DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H. L.].
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Cheylesmore and the Lord Glenesk be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Viscount Powers court and the Lord Wandsworth. Read, and agreed to.

    RAILWAYS (IRELAND) AMALGAMATION BILLS.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee to join with the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Great Southern and Western and Water-ford, Limerick, and Western Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [H. L.], the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill [H. L.], and the Great Southern and Western and Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Companies Amalgamation Bill [H. L.], viz.:—

    E. Spencer,

    L. Chelmsford,

    L Hawkesbury,

    L. Glanusk.

    The said Report to be considered on Thursday next.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
    Return of evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st March, 1900. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    ARMY.
    1. (Militia): Further regulations relating to the Militia.
    2. (Reserve): Further regulations relating to the Army Reserve.
    3. Rules of procedure made under the Army Act, 1881.
    4. Rules for military prisons made under Section 133 (2) of the Army Act, 1881.
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION (IRE- LAND).
    1. A Return, by unions, of the number of sane epileptics in Irish workhouses, a summary of which by provinces is given in the Twenty-seventh Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland, page 33.
    2. A Return of the unions in Ireland in which visiting committees of boarded-out children have been established in accordance with the regulations of the Local Government Board for Ireland issued in May, 1899.
    3. A Return of the workhouses in Ireland in which "trained nurses" have been appointed under Section 58, Subsection (2) (a) (ii) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, in conformity with the Local Government Board Circular "No. 4, M/99, Miscellaneous," of the 12th January, 1899, and the salary fixed for such nurses in each case.
    Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Lord Monteagle of Brandon.)

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [H.L.]
  POLICE RESERVISTS (ALLOWANCES) BILL.
    ELECTORAL DISABILITIES (MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
NEW BILL.
  DIOCESAN REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to registration in provincial and diocesan registries—Was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a, and to be printed. (No, 69.)

  REGIMENTAL, COUNTY TITLES.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take into consideration the desire which exists in Buckinghamshire that a regiment in Her Majesty s Army should again be permitted to bear the name of that historic county, a privilege which was taken away when the territorial system became the law of the land. I beg to tender my best thanks to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War for his courtesy in permitting this question to be again raised. The request that a regiment should again be permitted to bear the name of Bucking hamshire originated with the county council, and it ran like wildfire over the county, the magistrates, the members for the county, and the public bodies being all in favour of it. Although Lord Rothschild (the Lord Lieutenant) is not in his place to-day, he thoroughly backs up the movement and was anxious to head a deputation to the Secretary of State on the subject. Before the territorial system came into operation there were two county regiments—the 14th Regiment of Foot and the 85th Regiment, both of whom I had distinguished themselves on active service—but when that system became the law of the land they were incorporated into the Oxford shire Regiment. The old Bucks Militia served in the Peninsular War, and has sent 123 men and three officers to the 1st Oxford, now serving in South Africa. Every man who has gone out from the county of Bucks is a marksman. I think what Lord Beacons-field used to call the historic county of Buckinghamshire has done all it can in this direction, and if the noble Marquess will do us the great compliment of allowing a regiment to be called after the county it will give satisfaction throughout Buckinghamshire. High Wycombe, a town of strategic importance, could be made a garrison, and we would ourselves build barracks there on the Rowton House principle and lease them to the Government. I sincerely hope the noble Marquess will favourably consider this request.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY: Before my noble friend answers the question put to him by the noble Earl, may I be allowed to say a word on behalf of another county which has also been deprived of its county
  1002
  regiment? I refer to Nottinghamshire, to which county the old 45th Regiment used to belong. The Militia regiment of the county is at present at the front, and the Yeomanry who have gone out from Nottinghamshire have been under fire and have acquitted themselves well. With regard to the county itself, I may say that it has a population of 500,000, and is by no means an unimportant county. All we ask is that the 45th Regiment shall be given back to us. The county constitutes a large recruiting ground, and I think it would be better if the money which has been voted for building additional barracks was spent where the largest number of recruits would be obtained. So much interest has been taken in the matter that, although we did not receive a very favourable answer when a deputation went to the War Office, I sincerely hope the noble Marquess will say nothing against granting a regiment to Nottinghamshire as well as to Buckinghamshire.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): I am sure the noble Earl opposite does not exaggerate the desire which is felt in the | county with which he is connected for a i revival of the titular connection between that county and the territorial regiment. My attention has been called to the matter by the noble Earl and also by the Lord Lieutenant of the county, Lord Rothschild, who informs me that amongst the magistrates, and generally amongst the residents in the county, there is a widespread desire that the name of the county should again appear in the Army List in connection with the regiment. The territorial connection has not entirely disappeared, because, as the noble Lord knows, the 4th battalion of the regiment—the Militia battalion—is still called the Royal Bucks Militia. I know that the noble Earl is anxious for some thing more than that, and that he wishes for a Line regiment bearing the Buckinghamshire title. I am afraid that I can hold out to the noble Earl no hope that a new regimental district will be formed in the county of Buckinghamshire with the object of creating a Buckinghamshire Line regiment. To begin with, I feel almost sure that the recruiting capability of the county would not enable it to carry a regiment by itself. But, besides that, as I think I have said in this House before, we desire that the new Line

  1003
  regiments which are being added to the Army should be created as third and fourth battalions of existing double battalion regiments. There are strong reasons, with which I need not now trouble the House, in favour of the four- battalion organisation, and for that reason we have already allocated the ten new Line battalions to existing districts. I share the regret which the noble Earl has expressed that the Buckinghamshire title has disappeared from the Army List in connection with the territorial regiment. It is quite true, as he has told the House, that at the time the territorial system was introduced there were no fewer than three Line battalions called after the county. At that time there was a general linking of battalions, and in the shuffling of the cards the three Buckinghamshire battalions disappeared in a rather unaccountable fashion. I find that one Buckinghamshire battalion was linked to a Shropshire battalion and became the Shropshire Regiment, while the two other Buckinghamshire battalions became transmuted by some extraordinary process into the West Yorks. We quite recognise that the aspiration of the noble Earl is a natural and laudable one, and we are prepared to concede that, in some of those cases where the county title has dropped out, a case might be made for restoring it. I would briefly tell the noble Earl under what kind of conditions I can conceive; such a restoration might take place. I would say that where two counties have a common interest in a regiment, and it is named after one of those counties only, we would be prepared to consider the propriety of reviving the double name if a sufficiently strong case were made out by the county whose name had been dropped out in favour of the change; and I will indicate in half a dozen words what I mean by a strong case. I think that the advocates of the restoration of the double title ought to be able to show us that both counties bear a fair share in producing the recruits necessary to keep up the territorial regiment. I think they ought also to be able to show that the local feeling in favour of the restoration of the double title is a strong and genuine one, and when I say that I mean the local feeling in the two counties concerned and in the territorial regiment itself. I should be inclined to say that a sufficient case might not be made out if a strong feeling in favour of the change manifested by
  1004
  one of the counties concerned was to some extent neutralised by an equally strong objection to the change by the other county. Each case, however, will have to be considered on its merits, and if the noble Earl and those connected with him produce a sufficiently strong case I can promise it my most favourable consideration.
  EARL CARRINGTON: Half a loaf is better than no bread, and I thank the noble Marquess for his assurance.

  LIQUOR LICENSING LAWS—(ROYAL COMMISSION).
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I rise to move to resolve—
  "That it is desirable that legislative effect be given to such of the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Liquor Licensing Laws as are common to the 'Majority Report' and the 'Minority Report' of the Commissioners."
  I undertake the task, my Lords, with genuine and unaffected diffidence. There are many noble Lords in this House, Lords Temporal and Lords Spiritual, who are more qualified by personal experience of the difficulties which attend this question than I am to introduce the subject to your Lordships' notice. Specially should I have wished to see the matter taken in hand, on their own initiative, by Her Majesty's Government, who appointed the Commission to which my resolution refers, and who, it would seem to me, have some measure of responsibility for dealing with the unanimous conclusions to which that Commission ultimately came. But as no one else has shown any inclination or evinced any anxiety to undertake the duty, I venture to ask your Lordships' attention for a short time while I explain the intention of my resolution and ask you to support it. I doubt whether there is any subject of modern debate on which the official literature is so voluminous, about which the questions at issue are so complicated, and on which seems to be prima facie so irreconcilable a difference of opinion as the one with which my resolution deals. It is not, therefore, a very tempting subject for a short speech, which must endeavour to condense what is a very large mass of material.

  1005
  The mass of material in itself is a depressing thing to face for anyone who strives to thoroughly grapple with and understand the subject. Every inquiry which has taken place on the subject has added to the immense pile, and it is literally by the hundredweight rather than by the page that the literature on the topic is to be measured. I will take as illustrations of this fact two instances only. Some years ago a Select Committee of this House sat under the presidency of the noble Duke whose loss we all deplore—the late Duke of Westminster—to consider this subject, and the result of their lucubrations was given to the world in five folio volumes of some 2,100 pages. But that is a mere bagatelle as compared with the matter which has seen the light as the product of the Royal Commission appointed a few years ago. The Royal Commission to which we are to-night making reference has issued eleven folio volumes, containing 4,168 closely printed pages. If there is any member of your Lordships' House who has really faced and mastered that portentous mountain of matter I offer him to-night my congratulations and my sympathy, and I am quite sure there are many of your Lordships who will be very glad to be enlightened by what one, who has so fortified himself, can tell us. I can claim credit for no such herculean task, but I have read with care the final volume containing the Reports, and also a great deal of the evidence; and my motion is based on the firm conviction that the public at large has failed adequately to realise how large, how unexpectedly large, is the body of recommendations upon which the Commissioners are practically agreed, and how firm a basis is thus laid upon which legislation might without much difficulty be built. The Commission was appointed in April, 1896, and consisted of twenty-four members—of whom, roughly speaking, eight may be said to have represented the interests of what is known as "the Trade," eight were men who had more or less identified themselves with the Temperance cause, and eight were men supposed to approach the matter without bias and to look with impartiality upon the evidence which would be brought before them. The Chairman of the Commission was, as your Lordships all know, the noble Viscount (Viscount Peel), whose almost unique experience, as well as his high qualifications
  1006
  in other ways, seemed to mark him as an ideal chairman for a task of no small difficulty. The Commission appointed as its Vice-chairman Sir Algernon West, whose long administrative experience as well as his other qualifications it would be impertinent for me to refer to or to praise. The Commission took evidence from no less than 259 witnesses, and sat almost constantly for nearly three years. It did not report till July, 1899, when two Reports saw the light. The two Reports appeared to be complete each in itself, and to a superficial observer were practically independent of one another. One Report is signed by seventeen of the twenty-four members, headed by the vice-chairman of the Commission—that is to say, by the whole of those representing the Trade and by the party who claimed the attribute of approaching the matter with open minds. The second Report was signed by the Chairman of the Commission and by seven of his colleagues who were ranged upon what is commonly called the "Temperance" side. One Commissioner of great ability —an Irishman—signed both Reports. The Reports wore accompanied by a large number of individual Reservation in which separate members of the Commission stated the details upon which they dissented from the conclusions of those with whom in other respects they agreed. Anyone who examines those Reservations with care will find how very slightly they detract from the unanimity existing on each of the two sides in the Minority and Majority Reports respectively. As soon as those two Reports were issued there: arose what was perhaps to be expected, a public outcry. "How could it be otherwise?" we were asked, when a Commission had been appointed in this sort of way, and when people irreconcilably committed to diverse opinions beforehand were asked to sit together and to come to a joint conclusion. We were told that it was the worst possible course, in appointing a Royal Commission, to name people who were already committed on the subject, that we ought to have jurymen rather than counsel, and that only eight out of the whole Commission could be described in that particular way. I am far from wishing to enter on the difficult question as to what is the manner in which a Royal Commission ought to be appointed, but I think the argument I have quoted is a plausible one, and on

  1007
  the whole I am inclined to agree with it. In this particular case, however, there is a good deal to be said in arrest of judgment before we come to that conclusion. Suppose these Commissioners, appointed from such alien quarters, had arrived at a unanimous conclusion. Would not everybody have said it was a triumph for the noble Marquess at the head of the Government who had appointed them? But it is not generally known how near the Commission was to arriving at one unanimous Report. We have, in the last few weeks, had the advantage of hearing on that particular subject several Members who served on the Commission itself. In an article written by the Vice-Chairman of the Commission (Sir Algernon West) appears the following—
  "Up to this time [towards the close of the drawing up of the Report] there appeared to he every probability of She Commission coming to a nearly unanimous Report, mainly owing, I am bound to say, to the concessions of those interested in the liquor trade, who always appeared willing and ready to acquiesce in any reasonable reforms that the most experienced Commissioners considered for the public good.'
  The most rev. Primate who sits behind one, and who, as your Lordships are aware, has taken no small part in the work of this Commission, has within the last few days spoken to us from the opposite side to the same effect. In a speech delivered about a week ago the Archbishop of Canterbury said—
  "At one time I certainly thought that we should have had a unanimous Report; but it was not to be, and we have got two Reports instead of one. But I must say that the two Reports are a very great advance, even if you confine your examination of them to those points in which they both agree."
  The Blue-book itself and, still more, the articles which have recently been made public show us that it was not entirely upon abstract questions of temperance legislation that difference arose, but that there were questions as regards the administration of the Commission itself, upon which it would be entirely out of place for me to enter, but which obviously contributed in sonic measure to the result that two Reports instead of one saw the light. No sooner were the two Reports published than the enthusiasts on either side, and the ordinary cynical critics who discount all such endeavours to arrive at a solution of a problem, emphasised what they called the "irreconcilable difference" between the Reports, ignoring the fact that the
  1008
  great mass of the recommendations were common to both the Majority and the Minority Reports. The public, strange to say, has accepted this view, and most people now suppose the two Reports to be incompatible with one another if not absolutely antagonistic. Now, my Lords, it is certain that those who so think and speak are simply blind, or blundering, as to the actual facts. Prefixed to the summary of recommendations with which the Majority Report concludes is a statistical table. In that table the recommendations of the majority are summarised numerically. The number of recommendations which are so referred to or described amount to no less than ninety-nine, but some allowance must be made for overlapping and repetition, since the paragraphs relating to each country are separately numbered, though the recommendations are sometimes identical. The table goes on to show that of these ninety-nine recommendations fifty-five are absolutely common to the two Reports, and twenty-two are nearly so; that is to say, seventy-seven out of the ninety-nine recommendations are substantially common to the Reports of the minority and the majority, or, in other words, more than three-quarters of the recommendations are practically given to the world on the advice of the Commissioners as a whole. Will anyone contend that that is a result to be disappointed at, considering the difficulty of the subject grappled with, or that Her Majesty's Government can properly regard the Commission as having failed to arrive at a substantial basis of agreement? With your permission, my Lords, I will now try briefly to state what are the salient points in this great area of common ground, omitting minor matters which are of great importance, but which, for the sake of clearness, it is absolutely necessary to set on one side. In the first place, what I would say concerns itself with the "England" part of the report alone. There were practically separate Reports presented on England, Scotland, and Ireland, but the same principles run through the whole, and there is obviously a great deal of overlapping in what concerns the different countries. One point that struck me I may perhaps mention; I hope it will not wound the susceptibilities of any noble Lord connected with Ireland. It came out in the evidence that of the persons of all sorts

  1009
  committed to prison in Scotland during any given year one man in every three is an Irishman. I come now to the actual points I desire to call your attention to as belonging to both Reports, and I would ask you to bear in mind throughout that those whom we may roughly call the trade representatives are committed to these recommendations as much as the most ardent reformers on the Commission. First and foremost among the joint recommendations is the need which they all feel for the consolidation and simplification of the existing law. There are at this moment no less than twenty-five Acts of Parliament dealing with the licensing question, and through those Acts of Parliament those who desire to arrive at a conclusion on some knotty point of law connected with licences have time after time to make their way. Abundant evidence was before the Commission showing the conflicting advice which is given to magistrates, many of them not lawyers, by magistrates' clerks, on whom devolves the interpretation of the law, and who, it was shown, are not always free from an involuntary bias due to their professional relation to the trade. It is no wonder that confusion should follow from such a state of things, and that the Minority Report should amplify its recommendation in these words—
  "It is a serious drawback to the effectiveness of a law whose operation touches such a vast number of people and whose administration is in the hands of so many laymen, that it can hardly be understood without reference to a lawyer, and we concur in the opinion expressed by nearly all our witnesses that any future reform of the law should include its simplification and consolidation."
  The majority and minority accordingly recommend in identical terms that steps should be taken for the simplification of the existing law so that it may be more clearly understood than at present. Then we come to another point involving more difference of opinion—namely, the reconstitution of the licensing authority, both original and appellate. It is commonly said that there is a hopeless difference of opinion between the two Reports upon that particular subject, but that is not so. The matter is one of paramount importance, and, while the details of the recommendations differ, both Reports, as regards the initial licensing authority at all events, recommend practically the same thing. They
  1010
  recommend that the licensing authority should be selected triennially, and that a certain number of its members should be chosen by the magistrates, and a certain number by the county council or the town council, as the case may be which has to give the licences. That is not confined to the Minority Report. Both Reports recommend the same thing, although they slightly differ as to the numbers of members who should be thus elected by each local body. Both are in favour of the introduction in a mild form of the popular elective principle in what may be called the Court of First Instance. Then we come to the appellate jurisdiction—to the body to whom an appeal is to be made. Upon that point there is rather more difference of opinion between the two Reports. The majority recommend that the appeal court (if we so designate it) shall consist of justices only, who shall be selected by the justices, the Secretary of State settling what in each case shall be the number for the area affected. Both Reports agree that the body before whom the appeal shall come shall be a selected and not an ex-office body. The minority of the Commission recommend that the principle of indirect popular election shall be thus far preserved that those before whom the original application came, and against whose decision the appeal is made, shall themselves form a part of the ultimate Court to whom the appeal lies, so that the facts which led to the original decision can be stated by those responsible for it. They provide, however, that care shall he taken that the new element in the appeal court predominates over the old element in the proportion of at least three or two. I think it is not too much to say that the difference between the two Reports in this respect is not a vital one. At least, anyone who has followed the discussions which have taken place outside upon the subject will have seen that there is no irreconcilable difference of opinion, and that a compromise is very far indeed from being impossible. Passing from the licensing authority as thus reconstituted, we come to a large number of details as to the qualifications of its members and the powers they are to exercise, upon which practically the whole of the Commission are agreed in desiring certain definite changes. First of all, they are agreed that connection with a brewery company or the like, which dis-

  1011
  qualifies a magistrate from sitting as a member of a licensing authority, shall similarly disqualify the magistrates' clerk who has to advise them. Instances were given of the difficult position in which a magistrate's clerk is placed who has to advise magistrates on this matter whilst he is professionally connected with those whose interests are under the consideration of the magistrates. Both Reports recommend, also, that the watch committee in a town, upon whom so much depends, shall be subject to the same disqualifications as are the licensing authority. All agree in advising, on the other hand, that the technical disqualification of a magistrate by reason of the fact that he happens to be a shareholder in a railway company which has refreshment-rooms shall be abolished. Again, both bodies agree in recommending that the licensing sessions shall be held in March rather than in August or September, when so many of the justices are more agreeably employed, and find it difficult to attend. Again, both are agreed in recommending that there shall be a substantial interval of time between the granting of a licence and the appeal against it. It was shown quite clearly that often not sufficient time was allowed, and that, therefore, the rehearing was practically impossible. Both further recommend that the licensing authority shall have jurisdiction over what are known as "off" licences, which at present are not, in any clear or certain way at any rate, subject to the licensing authority, Both agree that what are called the ante-'69 beer-houses, which have certain special privileges, and are therefore in a somewhat exceptional position, shall come under the magistrates jurisdiction, and have their special privileges abolished or diminished. The majority recommend that in that case compensation should be given to them. Then, upon the great question of tied houses, the recommendation is made by both the minority and the majority that the agreements which exist between the brewer or the company and the actual publican shall be laid in full before the licensing board at the time the licence is under consideration, and that agreements of that kind which are withheld shall be ipso facto invalid. Then there is the extremely important recommendation that in lieu of the present endorsement upon a licence when
  1012
  a conviction has taken place—the endorsement at present disappears when a new licence is issued, and a house with a bad record gets a fresh start with a clean sheet—the licensing authority shall have before them in each case a record of all the convictions that have taken place with regard to that particular house when a renewal or a transfer of the licence is applied for. Both reports also lay it down as imperative that the chief constable must be relieved from any liability to dismissal without the sanction of the Secretary of State. The evidence made it clear that chief constables are restricted in doing what they otherwise would do by reason of the idea they entertain, whether rightly or wrongly, that their position would be imperilled if they acted as they felt prompted by duty to act. Such, my Lords, are some of the salient points upon which there is agreement between the two Reports. Is it to be thought possible that the whole of the labour which has been expended in arriving at this agreement is to be practically wasted, and that no legislative effect is to be given to this great body of really important recommendations in favour of amendments in our licensing laws? I find it difficult to believe that such can be the wish of Her Majesty's Government. Let me now turn, shortly, to another branch of the subject upon which the two bodies in the Commission are agreed—actual offences on the part either of the publican or his customers. What restrictions ought to be introduced with regard to Sunday opening? What about the protection of children? What a bout a actual drunkards? It is perfectly obvious that in a free country each one of these points presents features of very great difficulty, if we are to avoid the danger of interfering with the legitimate liberty of the individual, a liberty which every Member of your Lordships' House would desire as far as possible to protect. For myself, I am surprised at the virtual unanimity of opinion expressed by the Commission on these difficult matter's. As regards Sunday, both Reports agree that some further restriction is necessary as to the hours of opening in other places than London and some of our great cities. The hours suggested are not exactly the same in the two Reports, but the difference is only in detail. Both agree in very emphatic terms as to the flagrant abuse

  1013
  of the existing law known as the "bona fide travellers" clause. The epithets used by chief constables and others in referring to the bona fide traveller are not complimentary. He is referred to as a humbug and a delusion. Instances are given from every part of England of the way in which the enactments intended to meet what we should all desire to see safeguarded—the legitimate needs of actual travellers—are being set at naught in a manner which, if it were not melancholy in its result, would be ludicrous. Men take a penny ticket on the line to a distance beyond three miles, and they there have a right to demand that during the closing hours they shall have drink supplied to them. Many places are named both in Yorkshire, in Wales, and in the suburbs of London, where, upon a huge scale, the bona fide travellers clause is being used for the sole purpose of making possible drinking which would be otherwise illicit during certain Sunday hours. Both parties on the Commission are agreed in desiring to see the number of such available houses limited, the distance proscribed in the bona fide travellers clause extended, and the conditions made more stringent. It is very significant that on those points both Reports come to the same conclusion. As regards the protection of children, both Reports agree that an enactment is absolutely required which shall make it a definite offence to be drunk whilst in charge of a little child or little children. The evidence of Sir John Bridge - -whose death we all deplore, and who had a unique experience of such matters in his capacity as the leading police magistrate of London—is worthy of the consideration of those of your Lordships who have any doubt as to the need for a provision of this kind. He contrasts his power of punishing a man for being drunk while in charge of a horse with his inability to punish a man or woman for being drunk while in charge of helpless children. I now come, my Lords, to another point on which nearly every one has been surprised to find the degree of unanimity which exists between the Minority and the Majority Reports. Both recommend that the sale cither "on" or "off" of any kind of intoxicants to children under the age of sixteen should be forbidden; but inasmuch as this touches what are called child messengers, and is felt to be not so
  1014
  much a trade question as a question affecting the convenience of the working classes, the majority couple their recommendation with this, as it seems to me, not unreasonable clause—
  "Legislation in this direction, therefore, should only be undertaken after the fullest discussion with those best qualified to speak for the class affected, otherwise a strong reaction of opinion might follow."
  Even with that safeguard, it is a startling thing to find that the whole of the Commissioners have arrived at such a recommendation as I have referred to. It is exactly one of those cases in which people who marvel at the decision arrived at ought to read in detail the evidence—on which the conclusion is based—as to the bribes of sweets and toys given to little children to induce them to come into the public-house, and in some parts of England the additional amount of liquor, known as the "long pull," put into the jug, with the result that the child can without detection drink some of it on the way home. It is not my wish to argue now whether the conclusions of the Commission on this point are right or wrong, I desire simply to bring them before your Lordships and to say that if the Commissioners were biassed they were biassed by the evidence adduced before them. Then we come to the remarkable provisions for dealing with habitual drunkards. Almost all the points under that head are points upon which the whole Commission are absolutely agreed. They recommend that drunkenness in public shall be in itself an offence rendering a person liable to punishment, even apart from the disorder which usually accompanies it, and that habitual drunkenness shall be regarded as cruelty under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women's) Act, 1895, entitling the wife to separation for herself and protection for her children Then there is the striking and novel clause that a black list shall be formed of habitual drunkards, who are no longer to be trusted to indulge in a public-house because of the results which have been shown to follow, that publicans should be furnished with such list, and that knowingly to give liquor to one who stands on that list shall be an offence. It has been pointed out that in large cities such a provision would be ineffective; but in country towns and in very many districts of England it obviously could be carried out without difficulty.

  1015
  Both parties in the Commission agree in recommending it. I pass to the complicated and perplexing question of clubs. Everyone who has studied this subject knows how immense is the difficulty we have to face in any temperance legislation from the knowledge that restrictions upon drinking in public-houses may result in the greater evil of unrestricted and uncontrolled drinking in what are known as clubs. That is, I am afraid we must admit, a growing evil. The total number of clubs in which intoxicants are sold is 3,390, but besides those which are of a useful or harmless character, there are what are called bogus clubs almost the land through, which, while they profess to have some social or political object, do, as a fact, exist simply as places for drinking. There can be doubt about that, but I will give one single instance. Captain Anson, the Chief Constable of Staffordshire, who is well known to many of your Lordships, gave before the Commission a detailed description of a working man's club registered under the Friendly Societies Act, and standing upon a level which renders it absolutely exempt from police supervision. Such a club can be opened at all times of the day and night, with no prescribed hours of closing and no restrictions as to the behaviour of those frequenting it. This particular club had or has a membership of 250, and the annual subscription was a shilling per head. The objects of the club were defined in its rules to be—
  "To afford to its members the means of social intercourse, mutual helpfulness, mental and moral improvement, and rational recreation. Any person over eighteen is eligible, except parsons, police, and publicans."
  The accounts of the club are necessarily made public and are accessible to all. The annual expenditure was £770. Out of that, mental and moral improvement— as shown, presumably, by the purchase of newspapers and books—consumed £2 12s. 5d.; rational recreation (entertainments and games), £4 5s.; and refreshments, £764, of which £4, so far as we can make out, was for bread and cheese and £760 for drink. Captain Anson somewhat cruelly concludes his evidence by saying—
  "The last item, 'mutual helpfulness,' is brought into play at one o'clock hi the morning, when the sober members arm their friends homewards."
  1016
  There are, of course, large numbers of properly-conducted clubs which we should all desire to encourage. Both the majority and the minority agree in recommending that every club shall be registered; that there must be proof given that no individual makes a profit from the drink that is sold in the club—that is to say, if a profit is made it must go to the members as a whole; and that there shall be no "off" sale for drink away from the premises. Upon these main points both parties are agreed, and it is felt that these restrictions would afford some protection against the growth of what is a real danger. Upon that point I should like to make it clear that I, for one, feel that whatever restrictions are imposed as regards clubs, they must be applicable to all clubs —to the clubs of which your Lordships are members as well as other clubs; but the restrictions recommended are not such as would cause inconvenience to an well-conducted club whether in Pall Mall or Shoreditch. My Lords, I have, I fear, wearied you with these details; but it was necessary to show what I mean when I say that the great mass of matter on which the two sides are agreed affords an ample basis for legislation. But I have left untouched, it may be said, the most important point of all—the question of the reduction in the number of licensed houses and the results that would follow therefrom. The Minority Report says that "the number of licensed houses should be immediately and largely reduced." The Majority Report, it might have been supposed, would have objected to that recommendation, but it does not. It merely omits the adverb "immediately" and says: "The number of licensed houses should be largely reduced." That, my Lords, looks at first like agreement; but the conditions with which in each case the recommendation is coupled vary so greatly that I am not any longer upon ground upon which I can speak of the Commissioners as coming to a unanimous or joint recommendation. It is quite clear, if you agree to a joint recommendation but couple that recommendation with conditions differing so widely as do the conditions laid down by the Majority and Minority Reports, that the idea of unanimity comes practically to an end; but, personally, I take a sanguine view, and believe that the

  1017
  difficulties in the way of a harmonious settlement are more apparent than real. As the Vice-Chairman of the Royal Commission says in an article in the Nineteenth Century for February last—
  "On the thorny question of compensation there is a serious difference of degree between the two Reports, but scarcely one of principle.
  However that may be, I do not want to dwell upon it now. In my view, when once the subject is taken in hand for practical legislation the advantage and the possibility of a material reduction in the number of existing licences will become apparent, but it is by no means self-evident that you will reduce intemperance by reducing the number of public-houses. It is constantly said by Temperance speakers that the amount of intemperance varies just in proportion to the number of licensed houses, and it is easy to produce a string of statistics in support of that statement. But, my Lords, it is equally easy to produce a string of statistics to prove exactly the opposite. The police statistics—which are, after all, what we must rely upon—mean, of course, arrests. Arrests mean activity on the part of the police, and that depends largely on the support they receive from the magistrates who are behind them. Therefore we may be misled if we rely on statistics as to the real amount of drunkenness at any given time in any particular town. Statistics of this sort may be so handled as to prove almost any theory in a discussion which has many sides. That, I think, is quite evident from a study of the statistics in the Blue-book which is at this moment under your Lordships' consideration; but it was still more markedly brought out in the deliberations of the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of the late Duke of Westminster in 1878. A very striking example may be adduced from the evidence given before the Committee by no loss a person than the present Secretary of j State for the Colonies. Mr. Chamberlain was not at that time giving evidence as a politician but as the ex-mayor of Birmingham, in which capacity he had had special opportunity of dealing with criminal statistics and the like. He was cross-examined, I believe, by the noble Earl who leads the Opposition in this House. Tables were put in showing that particular offences in a given year had increased from 802 to 1,850,
  1018
  while in a corresponding period other offences had diminished to an almost corresponding degree; and Mr. Chamberlain, after the cross - examination had been proceeding a little while, said: "My Lords, I do not pretend to explain these figures." Another witness was Mr. Hoyle, who had written several statistical works on these points, and was recognised as the foremost authority on the subject. He was cross-examined at great length as to his statistics, and in the end the noble Earl who was cross-examining him said—
  "You have had considerable experience of such statistics, Mr. Hoyle. Do you not think it would be easy to prove almost anything you wished to prove by judiciously manipulating statistics from various parts of the country?"
  Mr. Hoyle admitted, in reply, in specific terms, that he had ceased to lay stress on local statistics, while he still attached great importance to great statistics of national drink bills and the like. For myself, I honestly believe that a considerable reduction in the number of licences would conduce to temperance by limiting the temptation offered to the weak, and, still more, by improving the character and responsibility of the licensed houses that remained. At the same time it is always to be remembered that a large reduction in licensed houses has perils and difficulties of its own. In the first place it will almost certainly mean a corresponding increase in the number of clubs, the danger of which I have already referred to; and, in the second place, it is certain that if you desire to largely reduce licences you must pay a heavy price for it. That no such reduction can take place without reasonable and adequate compensation seems to me so obvious as hardly to require arguing in Parliament or out of it. Whatever may be said as to the abstract right of one who is technically only an annual holder, I am perfectly certain that the words of Sir Algernon West are true, namely—
  "Parliament will not depart from the principle, so long recognised in the practice of the law, that a going concern or business required for a public purpose must be purchased at its market value."
  But, my Lords, do not let anybody think that it depends on questions of "compensation" whether or not we should have legislation. Bring about the practical, prosaic, uncontested reforms that are asked for by all parties on the Royal

  1019
  Commission, and even if you let the question of reduction and compensation entirely alone you will do untold good. My Lords, I must apologise for the inadequate way in which I have dealt with a complex and difficult problem, hut I do not apologise for bringing it forward. The need of action is universally admitted by magistrates, by the police, by social inquirers and social reformers of every kind, and certainly not least by the clergy, on whose behalf in some measure I speak to-night. A week ago the Upper House of the Convocation of York passed a unanimous resolution—
  "That the points of agreement between the Majority and Minority Reports of the Royal Commission on the Licensing Laws constitute a practicable basis for legislation."
  And this very day the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury have passed with absolute unanimity a resolution practically recommending the same thing. I call your Lordships' attention to that fact, for I am quite sure it is one which is worthy of consideration, and ought to have weight given to it. Of course, it would be quite easy to quote by the thousand resolutions to the like effect passed by temperance societies, but I know these would be discounted as coming from people who were practically committed to particular theories on the subject. I would rather quote a resolution which was passed the other day by a body entitled to consideration from a somewhat different point of view. On the motion of so staunch a Conservative as Sir John Kennaway, the magistrates sitting at the Devon Quarter Sessions unanimously adopted the following resolution—
  "That in the opinion of this Court, it is desirable that the practical suggestions for the improvement of the existing licensing laws and their administration, on which both sections of the Commission were agreed, should be embodied in a Bill to be brought before Parliament with as little delay as possible."
  That resolution, my Lords, asks for more than I do, but it is the opinion of men conversant alike with the difficulty and the facts. I do not ask that a Bill should be brought in at once, but I do ask that some action shall be promised when the proper time arrives. It needs no argument, to emphasise the fact that there is at this moment an evil which requires setting right, and which has remained without attention too long. Your Lord-
  1020
  ships will perhaps remember that the very first regular Licensing Act which was passed some 3.10 years ago was passed, as stated in the preamble, to remedy—
  "The intolerable hurts and troubles to the commonwealth of the realm which did daily grow and increase through such abuses and disorders as were had and used in common ale-houses and other houses called tippling houses."
  I ask you to compare that with the almost similar statement, though couched in rather different phraseology, which was made last year not by the minority of the Royal Commission, but by the majority; that is to say, by the body comprising the representatives of the trade. They say—
  "It is undeniable that a gigantic evil remains to be remedied, and hardly any sacrifice would be too great which would result in a marked diminution of this national degradation."
  It does not seem to me that words like those can be passed by without endeavouring to see if it is not possible to give them some practical response in action. We are occosionally told that it is impossible to grapple with the evil because the trade is too strong for us. I do not think your Lordships would assent to so humiliating an allegation. If it were true that the trade was firmly opposed to reform Parliament should set its hands to overcome such opposition. But it is not true. The recommendations I am making are adopted by many of the representatives of the trade themselves. I notice that in a speech delivered only a few days ago by Mr. E. N. Buxton, President of the Central Board of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, occur the following words—
  "Now, gentlemen, there is a very considerable measure of agreement in the executive proposals of the two reports, and I dare say you have noticed that the Bishop of Win-Chester is about to propose a most important resolution in the House of Lords in favour of legislation in those matters which are common to the two reports. …. I am in favour of legislation on those lines."
  I mention that important speech not because I wish to rest my authority on the evidence even this eminent member of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, but because I am anxious to meet the statement which may be made that I am speaking for one side only. Then, again, we are told that because property in breweries, distilleries, and the like, which used to be in the hands of the few, has now become the possession of the many, it is impossible to

  1021
  go forward in the matter owing to the interests being so widely distributed. I prefer to look at it in exactly the opposite way. I know that thousands of those who have thus acquired a personal responsibility in the matter are people with a keen interest in the welfare of the community at large, while on the other hand they are not biassed by what can be called professional identification with the trade. What has happened is this. They have acquired a locus standi; they have assumed a new responsibility; they are people who do care for the national well-being, and they do not wish to be supporting at this moment what the trade representatives on the Royal Commission themselves call "a gigantic evil." To them we have a right to appeal for help in giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is a commonplace to say that in questions of social reform the greatest danger comes when everybody says, "You must do something." The danger is that the thing you do thus hurriedly and by a forced march is the wrong thing. Abundant harm comes from hasty and inconsiderate tinkering with a great question. The recommendations to which I am asking your Lordships to say that effect ought before long to be given are not of that character at all. We are not dealing with some crude and ill considered scheme forced upon us by the enthusiasm of a few faddists who are going to interfere unduly with that sacred thing, the liberty of the subject. Nothing of the sort. What I am asking your Lordships to say is that effect should be given to the deliberate thought-out series of administrative proposals made by men who have for three years weighed the whole of this great question—proposals practically complete in themselves, and which, if effect were given to them to-morrow, would leave nothing that would afterwards have to be undone even if afterwards much had to be built upon them. Of course, my resolution does not satisfy the extreme people on either side. I have received letters from extremists stating that from a Temperance point of view the proposal I am making is miserably and contemptibly inadequate. I do not myself say that my suggestion leaves nothing to be desired, or that if effect were given to the Report in the manner I propose I should feel that nil that was necessary had been done.
  1022
  But it will be a step in the right direction. I am not asking Her Majesty's Government to take immediate action. I merely ask the House to say that action is desirable. I may be told that the closing years of a Parliament are not the time when forward action should be taken, and possibly that your Lordships' House is not the quarter from which such legislation should emanate. I have not said it is. I have simply asked the House to express the opinion that it is desirable that legislative effect should be given to such of the recommendations of the Commission as are common to the Majority and Minority Reports. That proposition seems to be only fair to the Commissioners themselves, who for three years gave their time to the consideration in detail of this thorny and anxious question which Her Majesty's Government propounded to them. They were directed by the noble Marquess and his Government—
  "to inquire into the operation and administration of the Laws relating to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, and to examine and report upon the proposals that may be made for amending the aforesaid Laws in the public interest, due regard being had to the rights of individuals."
  This, my Lords, they have carefully and adequately done. Are their labours to be entirely wasted? Are your Lordships aware that the cost of the Commission to the country was £7,880 17s. l0d.? It is a low point of view to take, but I ask, "Is that money to be entirely wasted?" It is fair to the Commissioners that effect should be given to their joint recommendations. It is only fair also to the trade, who tell us by their representatives that they want to get rid of certain acknowledged evils. It is fair also to temperance workers, to whom we owe so much; and, most of all, my Lords, it is fair to the English people as a whole, who do desire, I am quite certain, with an earnestness which is growing every day, to roll back a reproach which, in some degree, rests upon us all. I beg to move the resolution standing in my name.
  Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that legislative effect be given to such of the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Liquor Licensing Laws as are common to the "Majority Report" and the "Minority Report" of the Commissioners.—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, if I am unable to profess my assent to the motion of the right rev. Prelate, it is not on the ground of any opinion I may have formed upon the various administrative and speculative questions with which he has dealt, although, no doubt, it would be necessary, if we proposed to legislate, to form an opinion upon them, and a very careful opinion. But I am now proposing to demur to the motion of the right rev. Prelate because it introduces a new method of legislation which I never heard of before, and the results of which might be exceedingly inconvenient. Everybody who votes for this motion will accept en bloc such of the recommendations contained in the final Report of the Royal Commission as are common to the Majority and Minority Reports. My Lords, we have a very ancient system of legislation in the two Houses of Parliament, and I do not see why we should depart from it. If the right rev. Prelate has any distinct recommendations to make on the various subjects on which he touched, the obvious course for him to take is to bring in a Bill. Let him draw up his Bill, and then we will give to it the most respectful attention. I do not promise to assent to it before I have seen it; I do not know precisely what provisions it might contain; but I am certain that it would be an enormous departure from anything we have hitherto done to allow all the propositions to which he pointed to be, as it were, pitchforked by one effort on to the Statute-book without examining them clause by clause and determining how far we can accept them. For what reason should we take this very exceptional course? The right rev. Prelate has given some very odd reasons why we should. One was that the Commission cost £7,800, and that we ought not to lose that money. Another was that the Commission should have some consideration at our hands, and the temperance reformers also. I desire not to yield to anyone in the respect and consideration I wish to pay to the Commissioners, who undoubtedly have gone through a labour of extreme severity and have attained results that are perhaps not altogether satisfactory. But why is this Commission to have this special consideration? Does any man in this House
  1024
  remember any other instance in which it was proposed to pledge all the Members of the House voting for it to all the recommendations of any Commission? I remember no such instance, and I do not believe that such a proposition would be looked at for a moment in this House. Why, then, is an exception to be made in the present case? Because we are dealing with a Commission which quarrelled over half of its recommendations and was unable to come to a unanimous opinion as to the rest? That undoubtedly is a great achievement of human virtue; but we have had Commissions which have agreed on the whole of their recommendations without any preliminary process of quarrelling about half of them, and I have never heard that on that account it was supposed that without any of the ordinary precautions of legislation we were to accept entirely all the proposals they unanimously made. The right rev. Prelate has not even told us in formal language what were the opinions to which he desired we should pledge ourselves. I do not say that would have been an acceptable mode of proceeding, but it would have been at all events less embarrassing than that which the right rev. Prelate has actually pursued; because he has not put down any statement of the opinions in which the majority and minority have concurred. He tells me there is in one page of the Blue-book an account of the number of matters upon which the majority and minority have agreed. Well, I have tried my best to pick out by examining the references what are the common recommendations of which they entirely approve. In the list of propositions on which the minority and the majority are agreed we constantly come across the adverb "partly," but that does not help us much to know what it is that is recommended to us unanimously by the two Reports. We are next told that we should agree to the recommendations of the Majority and the Minority Reports. What are the recommendations of the Majority Report? I hope I may be pardoned some difficulty in finding the matter on which I am asked to legislate. That is not entirely my fault. I find that there were seventeen members in the majority—an imposing body—but out of that seventeen ten signed with reservations. It is very difficult to obtain guidance for legislation from recommen-

  1025
  dations of that sort; and if the measure which you are asked to pass is not put down at all, if it is merely referred to by a series of figures, and those figures be of an absolutely ambiguous and doubtful meaning, it is a now process of legislation which the right rev. Prelate is inviting us to undertake. Do not let it be imagined that these are matters on which, with so little clear indication of what the right rev. Prelate asks, we can legislate by one single blow. Do not let us imagine that they are easy or plain sailing questions to which we are introduced. There is, for instance, one question on which it is said the majority and the minority are agreed. It is that all persons who hold licences granted previous to 1869, and which they hold to a certain extent under a public guarantee, are to be placed under the licensing authority with liberty to dispossess and to compensate. If you stop at the word compensate there may seem to be no injustice. But "compensation" in the language of the Majority Report means money levied from the other publicans. That may be just or it may not be just. I do not know that it has been discussed in this House. It is a measure of extreme importance and difficulty; but I am quite sure that it is not a change which you should adopt in this haphazard way. On the contrary, you should apply all the safeguards you are accustomed to apply in other matters. Another equally strong proposal laid down is that off-licences and the wine and the grocers' licences should be brought under the licensing authority. It may be right or it may be wrong; but surely it is not a matter on which you should pledge yourselves this evening without seeing the enactments to which you are asked to subscribe. Then there is a proposal that no public-house shall be licensed in future of less than £12 rateable value, which means less than £15 rent. Here in London that might be a harmless, or not very embarrassing, proposal; but I am quite sure there are many parts of the country in which it would mean depriving vast areas of the population of any facilities for drinking beer at all. There are many other matters which you cannot call less than important. I do not hold with that proposal to prohibit a girl from fetching her father's beer if she is under sixteen. It is a proposal which you could not adopt without very careful consideration. What it means is
  1026
  this. It means that there is no one else to fetch the beer. The boys are out at work, and the mother naturally sends a girl. Suppose she has two girls, one under sixteen and the other aged seventeen. Which would you prefer to send into a contaminating place? Is not the danger to morality in its wider sense infinitely greater to force the mother to rely entirely upon a girl of seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen because you do not allow her to send the younger children who are too young to meet the pollution which in some places they are likely to meet? Then there are some other odd recommendations. There is a recommendation that steamboats should be placed under the licensing authority, so that even at the moment of your greatest agony, when leaning over the leeside, you are not to have temporary relief unless with the permission of the licensing authority. I have some sympathy with people who want to have beer on Sundays. I do not drink beer myself, but I confess that if I did I should want it as much on Sundays as on any other day. Why should the unfortunate inhabitants of Monmouthshire be deprived of their beer during the whole of Sunday because some of them on the western border of the county speak more Welsh than English? Is it reasonable? All these are, no doubt, very difficult questions— what I mean to say is that they are not questions to be pitchforked on the Statute-book. They are questions which ought to be examined with all the care and debated with all the attention which we ought to give to important subjects. I do not wish to enter into the general question, but allow me to point out that there are two considerations which I think should impress upon you the great care and circumspection which are necessary in legislating on this question. I do not wish to say that they should prevent you from legislating, but they seem to negative anything like haste or precipitation. The first is that it is the habit, when you wish to prevent an offence, to direct your punitive efforts on the person who commits it, and that runs through the whole of our criminal law. But here you have one splendid exception. You wish to prevent a certain number of people from getting drunk; therefore you are asked to prevent four, five, and six times as many, who are sober con-

  1027
  sumers, from having an opportunity of the indulgence and the sustenance to which they have a right. Why are you to punish the innocent in order to save the guilty? It is so great an exception to your ordinary legislation that before you consent to reduce public-houses to a degree that may be inconvenient to the sober consumer you are bound to take the utmost care and to reflect with the greatest circumspection. But there is another circumstance also. There are many ways in which you may divide the people of this country—rich and poor, those having power and those not having power. But your temperance reformer strikes one new line of division—that part of the population which possesses cellars and that which does not. Those happy persons who possess collars fly too high for the attacks of the temperance reformer or the censures that are passed upon them. No one tries to make them sober; no one interferes with the amount of time or the place they like to drink in; no one suggests that their habits, be they good or bad, are a matter on which the Government of the country ought to interfere. But directly you get away from that part of the community who possess cellars to that part of the community who do not possess them, then you come into the very thickest zone of paternal legislation, and appear to be very indifferent as to the amount of inconvenience you may cause to those who are innocent, if only you can carry out your wish. This kind of legislation is absolutely of a class character. I may be told that the working classes wish this legislation. I wish I could see any emphatic proof of that. We have the proof that many most excellent persons who take a great interest in the working classes wish for it; but how far they represent the people on behalf of whom they speak is, I think, a matter of doubt. You must remember in this popular Government under which we live the people have two votes. They have one vote by their representatives; but if they do not take much interest in affairs the representatives are not moved, and the voice of the people is but little heard. But when the Act is passed and comes into execution, especially if it is an Act which interferes with their own personal and daily comfort, you will then find to your cost that they have another vote, because the Act will
  1028
  be vetoed by their refusing to obey it. It is a matter of very great danger, or at least very great inconvenience, to enter upon legislation of this kind without thorougly ascertaining the views of those for whom you are legislating; but the curiously perverted condition of this question is shown by the fact that all this legislation is passed by the cellared population and not by the cellarless population, who are very deeply affected by it and, however unwillingly, are made to suffer by what has been provided for them. On that one matter of sending children to fetch beer—a matter on which I quite admit at first sight a good deal is to be said for the reform proposed—I have been told by persons who know the working classes well that there is nothing which they will resent with more indignation than to be told they may not send their children to fetch beer for their daily meal. I am not advancing these considerations to convince anyone on one side or the other in relation to the speculative questions which are being discussed. I am well aware that a very strong feeling exists on this subject; and it will be a very long time before we argue one another into anything like a unanimous opinion. But in dealing with this question I urge that you shall show to all the world that you do not deal with it as something on which you are at liberty to legislate on slender grounds or in the absence of thorough investigation. I ask that you will apply to this question, as to every other question, those precautions and safeguards which you have always applied in any legislation up to the present time. For these reasons I am afraid that it is impossible for me to accept the motion of the right rev. Prelate.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I am very unwilling to trouble your Lordships, but, as Chairman of the Commission which has undergone severe labours to arrive at what the noble Marquess has, I am sorry to say, described as unsatisfactory results, I may be allowed to say a few words. I had hoped that Her Majesty's Government would have taken the initiative in this matter, and not have loft it to the right rev. Prelate to introduce the subject to your Lordships' notice. But it is evident, from what the noble Marquess has said, that the Government have paid no attention whatever to a question which, outside this House, is

  1029
  exciting the very deepest interest amongst the most earnest-minded people of the country. I deeply regret that the noble Marquess has touched only on what I may call the light and insignificant matters, and has left entirely out of sight the great questions dealt with by the Commission. The petty squabbles which were supposed to have occurred in the Commission are of the past, and no one cares anything about them. The main point is, what did the Commission recommend? It is not a fair representation of any portion of the recommendations of the Commission to say that it was a question of those having cellars against those not having cellars. Put in that way, the legislation of this country for 350 years at least has proceeded on that principle; it has throughout adopted a restrictive policy, which in its nature must operate more upon the poor than upon the rich. The noble Marquess has said that this is a poor man's question. It is indeed. Any one who reads the evidence before the Commission will find what a congestion of public-houses there is in the poorer parts of this great city, what misery is caused by them to the immediate vicinity, and what efforts the more respectable of the working classes have made to escape from the degradation of the public-house by getting into districts where they are fewer. Anyone who reads the evidence will understand how this question touches the social and domestic happiness of the poor. I am bound, my Lords, to admit, as the noble Marquess has said, that it is a little difficult to ascertain the exact points of agreement between the minority and the majority of the Commission. There were really three Reports, including the Report of Mr. Whittaker, M.P., which for lucidity and cogency of argument leaves nothing to be desired. The Majority Report declared that the evil was so great that it amounted to a national degradation. That is a basis on which, I should have thought, any superstructure could be raised. But immediately some of the members of the majority began to whittle that basis away, to make reservations, and, finally, to recommend legislation which would be in no wise adequate to the circumstances of the case. They stated that—
  "Hardly any sacrifice would be too great which would result in the marked diminution of this national degradation."
  1030
  But immediately after they affirmed that—
  "The licensing laws may be left to the operation of time, without the application of any special remedies."
  So that this national degradation is to be met by the quiet efflux of time. There is another reservation made by members of the majority, who say—
  "No sufficient reason has been shown for imposing a tax either upon the trade or the public for effecting a diminution in the number of licences."
  The Minority Report I am responsible for, and I had the support of seven of my colleagues on the Commission; but that Report was naturally, in the course of circumstances, taken by the majority of the Commissioners, when we unhappily came to a point where the road parted, as the basis for their Report, and they instantly began to water it down and dilute it to such a degree as would, had they been publicans, have brought them within the penalties imposed by the licensing laws. I am glad to know that on many points there was agreement between the two Reports, and they are points of importance in themselves, as the right rev. Prelate has shown, if they are made effective. But the noble Marquess does not hold out any hope that the matter will be considered by the Government. It is now eight or nine months since the Secretary of State for the Home Department said the Government would be in no hurry in considering this matter, but would give it their consideration. The noble Marquess now implies there is no hurry, and that the Government will not even give it their consideration. The people outside, however, have considered the matter, and have, unlike Her Majesty's Government, formulated distinct opinions as to what is practicable. I hope I say without egotism that the consensus of opinion in the country as to the Minority Report is very remarkable. The Church of England Temperance Society has over and over again advocated the special points of the Minority Report, whilst not an hour ago I received a memorial from the great Wesleyan Methodist body in favour of the provisions of the Minority Report. The memorial is signed by the president, all the ex-presidents, and by every president of the thirty-four districts with one exception, and that gentleman,

  1031
  being in America, has had no opportunity of signing it. This shows that consideration has been given to the subject, and that it is not unreasonable to adopt the recommendations of the minority as a basis for legislation. The right rev. Prelate has dwelt upon the points of agreement between the two Reports. They are, I am happy to say, numerous; but, compared with the points of difference, they are not so remarkable. It is not that we (the minority) set so much store by little questions, though important in themselves it is true, such as that of allowing children to be sent to the public-house. I must remind your Lordships that there is already a restriction as to the age at which children shall be served; and it does not seem to me to be a great advance to say that children under a certain age shall be forbidden to go into a public-house, whether to be served for their own consumption or to be served as messengers for others. But every Commissioner would be glad to ascertain the wishes of the working classes on that point, and to cooperate in the work of carrying them into effect. I am afraid there are deeper differences than those which I have indicated. On the great question of compensation the Commission split, I was going to say, into its component parts, but, happily, that was not so. There was, however, a great divergence of opinion; and here may I interpose a remark on the constitution of Commissions? I am of opinion that it is not a good process, in appointing Commissions, to adopt the principle of balanced interests. To appoint a certain number of gentlemen who have committed themselves on this side, and a certain number who have committed themselves on the other side, and then to sandwich in between them a set of gentlemen who are supposed to be neutral, is, to my mind, an unsatisfactory method of procedure. I should have thought that it would have been quite possible to find half a dozen men of impartial and judicial minds to constitute a Commission and to receive and form conclusions upon the evidence which might be submitted to them. As to compensation, the question arose as to whether it was to be a question of right or a question of favour. As chairman of the Commission, I came distinctly to the conclusion that in point of law there is no sort of case for compensation if, in the
  1032
  exercise of a judicial and judicious discretion, the magistrates decided to take away a licence at the end of the year. But I hope we are practical men, and in dealing with interests which have now become very vast the view which we took was that it was expedient to provide compensation in some shape or other for the cessation of a licence. We, that is the minority, propose that a seven years notice be given to the whole trade, together with money payments, for withdrawal of a licence, if withdrawn within that time, calculated on the number of years which had elapsed since the general notice was given, and that at the end of the full period of (in England) seven years compensation should absolutely cease and determine. This would be a scheme which would enable you to reduce the licences all over the country. If that is a bad principle, do not accept it; but at the same time it must be remembered that these licences are increasing in the great towns, in the old towns and in the new towns that are growing up, and that there is a congestion of licences which is a degradation to any civilised country. I am one of those who think that the more licences the greater the temptation, and that the more licences are spread over a town the more the drunkenness. Statistics prove anything, I know, but it is a matter of common observation. I state my own conviction that where licences abound there crime, degradation, and drunkenness abound. It is certainly a scandal that over 19,000 people should be found helpless and unconscious in the streets in one city in one year. Is this to be allowed to go on without something being done to remedy it? Cannot the Government give us encouragement that these evils will be in some degree grappled with and abated? I believe that if you are going to stave off the cry for local option you must introduce into the licensing authority the popular element in some shape or other. It might be said that this is the thin end of the wedge; but I only hope that people into whose locality public-houses are introduced against their wish shall be enabled through their representatives to say, "We have enough for the wants of the place and we object to licences being granted in this neighbourhood." Let the people in some way have a voice in the distribution of licences. Compensation, then, is not to

  1033
  be a right. It is a favour at the end of seven years; and I am sorry to say that here I differ in toto from the Majority Report, which would clothe licences with a vested interest after seven years for another period of seven years. Under these circumstances I cannot see when a vested interest would come to a close. Whatever may be the issue of the discussion which has taken place to-night, I am deeply impressed, from what I have seen and heard during the three years of the Royal Commission, that even if what is proposed were carried and the points of agreement put into effect a reform to that extent would not be entirely satisfactory. It would have to be taken as an instalment only. So far, I am glad to be with the right rev. Prelate, but his solution of the difficulty would be by no means regarded as a final settlement of what I believe has long been and is now more than ever a great social and domestic danger.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have listened with very great attention to the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, and while he was speaking I could not help asking this question in my own mind—If this is the case, why did you issue the Commission at all? The noble Marquess discussed every point exactly as if the Report, or Reports, produced by this Commission had not in any way whatever anything to do with him or with the Government. It is exactly as if the Report of the Commission had been a paper drawn up by some influential people who thought the matter of grave importance, and wished to bring it before the whole country, and, therefore, submitted what they thought would be of real value for the improvement of the legislation of the country in this direction. That this was the Report of a Commission appointed by the Government seems never to have entered his Lordship's mind at all. He seems to speak as if he had nothing to do with it. The noble Marquess said over and over again that all these various proposals require very careful consideration. What were the Commissioners doing all through the three years during which they sat? They were giving these questions the most careful consideration. They listened to a very large amount of evidence; they had given time and toil, and at the end of it all their Reports are spoken of as if
  1034
  there had been no investigation at all—nothing done during the three years. The noble Marquess tells us now that we must not have legislation without most careful consideration—as if we had not given long and careful consideration to all these points! It seems to mo that this is not quite the way in which a Royal Commission ought to be treated. Here we had twenty-four gentlemen, most of them—certainly I myself—overwhelmed with work, and I hardly think they were inclined to take this investigation as a recreation. I repeat, then, that I think it is very strange that we are told we must consider the matter, that it has not been properly considered. My Lords, I do not deny that when you come to legislate you will have to consider every one of these points very carefully; but the very beginning of such consideration must be some distinct attempt at legislation. There must be something put before us. The noble Marquess seemed as if he would throw upon others than the Government any action that was to be taken on this important question. I venture to suggest to the right rev. Prelate that he should put his motion into a more definite and distinct form, and move these words—
  "That it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should on an early day lay before Parliament proposals founded on such of the recommendations contained in the final Reports of the Royal Commission with regard to the Liquor Licensing Laws as are common to both the Minority Report and the Majority Report of the Commission."
  We think it is time that some legislation should follow, and that the best guide the Government could take would be to consider those recommendations which are common to both Reports, and make proposals in the shape of a Bill which would be in the direction of such recommendations. There is a strong reason why we should not wait. We are doing much more than merely permitting drunkenness. We are really sowing the seed for greater drunkenness afterwards. The drunkards who are most difficult to deal with are, generally speaking, those who have imbibed from their parents into their system this strong temptation to yield to the attraction of drink. We know that of those whom we try to bring to a better mind a very large number indeed owe the strength and intensity of the temptation to the fact that their parents, or, at any rate, their fathers, indulged in

  1035
  this way themselves. This hereditary character of a great deal of the drunkenness lays a heavy responsibility on those who are postponing, postponing, and postponing all attempts to remedy this state of things, because it is making the difficulty of dealing with this evil perpetually larger. I entreat your Lordships to press on the Government that it is not right that in this country we should allow what even those who are engaged in the trade call a gigantic evil and a national degradation. It is not right that we should stand by quietly and say, "We will see. The time has not come." This seems almost as much as saying, "The time will not come." I would urge upon the House the fact that delay in this matter is a very much greater evil than it is generally considered to be. Of course, I myself signed the Minority Re-port. I do not deny that I should prefer the Minority Report to the Majority Report, and prefer it very much, but I am sure we should at any rate gain by adopting so much of the Majority Report as agrees with the Minority Report—so much as you can fairly say are the unanimous views of this Commission of the Government's own appointment. I think it is quite reasonable that the House should press on the Government the necessity of not long delaying their handling of this matter.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I quite agree with the suggestion made by the most rev. Prelate to amend the motion, because I see plainly that, as it now stands, it is open to the very obvious objections made to it by the noble Marquess. But, having said that, I must express my astonishment at the manner in which the noble Marquess has dealt with the subject. To me it is a matter of extreme surprise that the head of the Government, after having appointed a Commission upon this important matter, should really appear to have considerable doubt whether there should be any legislation at all on this subject. Although the noble Marquess did not say so, I am sure those who heard him had the impression left on their minds that, at all events in the opinion of the noble Marquess—I put it no higher than that—there were considerable doubts whether any legislation on this subject-was desirable. I will be quite candid and will say at once that I am not and
  1036
  never was an extreme temperance reformer. Personally I attach far more importance to the general improvement of habits and of the practices of the whole population than to any law which we can pass. I believe that a general improvement is shown now in the diminution of crime and in the matter of drunkenness, and that improvement, I believe, will go on. But then I think there is room for legislation by which that improvement may be hastened and assisted, and hence I am in favour of some legislation. The subject is, no doubt, a very difficult one, but I have always felt that it is disastrous that those who are strongly in favour of what I should call temperance legislation have never been willing to adopt some moderate stop in the direction they desire to move which there might be some reasonable hope of seeing passed into law. The noble Marquess deprecated haste and precipitation. That has certainly not been the character of the proceedings of the Government in this matter, unless I should call it haste to appoint a Commission in order to stave off a disagreeable question. Perhaps there was some haste in that, but when it comes to acting upon the matter, to doing something, then the noble Marquess says, "For heaven's sake don't let us do anything with haste and precipitation." So far from there having been haste and precipitation in regard to this matter, there has been nothing but delay and inquiry and enormous talk, until many people were sick of hearing the question mentioned. There is room for some moderate legislation on this subject. I do not pledge myself, any more than I should expect the Government, who ought to make themselves responsible for a Bill dealing with the subject, to pledge themselves, to every part of the Report of the Commission. But what I insist upon is that there is in the recommendations agreed upon by men differing very much on other points a fair basis for some future legislation of a reasonable character. I do not think that any legislation which is more stringent than that suggested in the agreed recommendations of the Commission can be carried. I rejoice that there are certain things clearly laid down in this Report. There is one point of very great importance upon which, no doubt, the majority and the minority were not agreed, as the noble Viscount who was

  1037
  Chairman of the Commission pointed out. They were not by any means entirely agreed as to the reduction of public houses and the compensation to be awarded to those whose houses were closed. There is a very great difference of opinion between the two bodies as to the manner in which the principle is to be carried into effect, but there was agreement upon two very important points—namely, that there should be a reduction and, which is still more important, that any compensation which was to be given to those whose houses were closed was to be levied on the trade. That I look upon as a very important principle, and I do not believe that in any other mode but that will compensation be possible. It is a matter of common observation that there are an undesirable number of public-houses in many parts of the kingdom, but if I am asked if I think the essence of the question consists in the number of public-houses I say "No, I never did." The statistics placed before the Commission of which I was a member, and to which the right rev. Prelate alluded, showed that in the northern part of the island there was more drunkenness, as a rule, than in the southern part; but it could not be shown, I recollect, that where there were a great number of public-houses in many cases there was by any means a proportionate amount of drunkenness. I believe that the habits of the people, the wages of the people, the nature of the climate, and a variety of other circumstances do have an important influence in this matter. On the other hand, I am not prepared to say that drunkenness is not increased by there being so many public-houses. The mistake is to say that it is the sole cause of intemperance. There are other causes at work which must be taken into consideration. But I anticipate that a wise and moderate reduction in the number of public-houses would have good effect in the direction we all desire. The noble Marquess said it would be dangerous to legislate without a careful consideration of the habits of the people who would be affected, and it was necessary to have their assent to the legislation. I quite agree that that is a reason for proceeding cautiously; but, if we are to proceed cautiously, does that mean that we are not to proceed at all? That is the point upon which we differ from the Government. Bearing in mind that the Govern-
  1038
  ment is largely supported by those who have an interest in public-houses, and seeing that they themselves put this matter before the country by means of a solemn inquiry, it would be reasonable to conclude that they had made up their minds that legislation on the subject was absolutely necessary. We know that this is one of the strongest Governments under which we have ever lived—strong, that is to say, in having an enormous amount of support in the House of Commons and in this House. But, when it comes to using that strength, we have never had a Government which was so afraid of running any danger of legislation, of taking any step that would produce controversy in the country. This question has been before the country for years; a Royal Commission has declared it is one that should be dealt with by Parliament, yet we are now told that we ought not to act with haste and precipitation. I must say it fills me with despair. I rejoice that the right rev. Prelate has brought the question before the House in a form which, as amended by the most rev. Prelate, may be voted for without any fear by those who think that the time has come for legislation in some reasonable form on the drink traffic.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out 'legislative effect to be given to' and insert 'Her Majesty's Government at an early date lay before Parliament proposals founded on.'"—(The Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury.)
  On Question, agreed to.
  Moved, To agree to the original motion as amended.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The proposal we have been considering is whether we should recommend any legislation upon a certain number of propositions, more or less clearly indicated. That is now turned round practically into a vote of want of confidence in the Government on the subject of this legislation. I have no objection to accept battle on that point with sufficient notice. I have not received such notice on the present occasion. I shall certainly object to the resolution being put. It is contrary to the practice of the House, and if the amended motion is carried I should not accept the decision as the

  1039
  decision of the House, because it will have been obtained by craft.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I venture to ask what the noble Marquess considers a decision of the House. The attendance is not below the level of the ordinary quorum. Has not the subject been sufficiently debated, at least by one side of the controversy? I would ask, therefore, why we are to be debarred by the protest of the Prime Minister from proceeding to a division on the question after a discussion, detailed, adequate, and relevant, certainly from one side of the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I venture to think that this, as a question of censure of the Government, has not

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Burghclere, L.

  Ely, L. Bp.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  Coleridge, L.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Davey, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Hawkesbury, L. [Teller.]

  Carrington, E.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Jersey, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Monkswell, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Reay, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Stamford, E.

  Southwell, L. Bp.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Truro, L. Bp.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Cobham, V.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Peel, V.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Welby, L.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Barnard, L.

  Windsor, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Romney, E.

  Digby, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Glanusk, L.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Verulam, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  James, L.

  Portland, D.

  Kinnear, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Bristol, M.

  Knutsford, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Landaff, V.

  Ludlow, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Newton, L

  Carnwath, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Honetoun.)

  Pirbright, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  (L. Chamberlain.)

  Poltimore, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Belper, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Brampton, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Churchill, L. [Teller.]

  Ventry, L.

  been fully discussed; and it is not the custom in either House of Parliament to propose a censure of the Government without due notice.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CAN-TERBURY: I should like to say that, although I have proposed this Amendment to the resolution, I have not at all lost my confidence in his Lordship's Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The most rev. Prelate may most kindly say what he likes, but what I care for is what he does.
  On Question, whether to agree to the original motion as amended, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 42; Non-contents, 45.