Sitting of 22 April 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No, 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  London and North Western Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. That in the case
  882
  of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.
  Metropolitan Common Scheme (Ham) Provisional Order Bill.
  Metropolitan Common Scheme (Orpington) Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills he read a second time to-morrow.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL (NO. STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant

  883
  to the Order of the House of the 2nd day of April, That, in the case of the following Bill, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Dublin Corporation Bill.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 1st day of April, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  National Gallery (Purchase of Adjacent Land) Bill.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 2nd day of April, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Electric Lighting (London) Bill.

BURY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.

    HONLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL.
    LONDON BRIDGE WIDENING BILL.
    LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTH END RAILWAY BILL.
    Read the third time and passed.

LEATHERHEAD GAS BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
PETERSFIELD AND SELSEY GAS BILL.
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
"To regulate the expenditure of Money by the London County Council on Capital
884
Account during the current financial period, and the raising of Money to meet such expenditure," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS.
Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP F).
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS informed the House that the Committee on Group F of Private Bills not being-appointed to meet until to-morrow, the parties promoting the Devonport Corporation (Gas) Bill, which was set down for consideration on the first day of the meeting of the Committee, had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of Samuel William Wright, a servant of the Admiralty, 62, Alexandra Road, Devonport, was essential to their case, and that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House,
Ordered, That Samuel William Wright do attend the Committee on Group F of Private Bills to-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Tunstall (No. 1): Watermills; Bedford; Abram; Dewsbury; Wharton Hall; Radcliffe and Kearsley; Bower Hollinwood; Broad Oak; and Dunkirk Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Greenwich; Gosport; and London (two); to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from New Cwm-; gorse; Tunstall (No. 1); Watermills Dewsbury; Aspull; New Flint; Bedford; Abram; Twyn Gwyn; Wharton Hall; Stevenston; Radcliffe and Kearsley; Broad Oak; Dunkirk; Bower Hollinwood; and Oldham Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from London and other places, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against, from Dumfries; and Perth; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from South Tottenham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions against, from Oldham; Manchester; Matlock Bridge (two); Matlock Bath (three); Matlock Bank (two); Tansley; Matlock Green (two); Bensall; Holloway; Winster; Elton; Stockton-on-Tees; Darley Dale; Cromford (two); Darley Bridge; Lea; Two Dales; Darley; Evesham; Horfield; Sheffield (two); Berkeley; and Stockport (fourteen); to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Glasgow; Inveraray; Fife and Angus; Bere Alston (two); Chudleigh; Donside; Bishops Teignton; Bi shop Auckland; Spennymoor; Virginstowe; Marston; Lancaster; Caton; Thornton; Kearsley; Ardrossan; Sheffield (two); Beith; Little Dunkeld; Westminster; Cheriton Fitzpaine; Crediton; Dumbarton (two); and Sandford; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Tyrie; Holm; Mains; Tillicoultry; Birsay; Alva (three); Annan; Dumfries; Royal Parliamentary and Police Burghs of Scotland; Fordyce; Fenwick; Kilbirnie; Stewarton; Anstruther Easter; Crail; Boyndie (two); Mull; Rathven (three);
  886
  Dumbarton; Glassary; and Logierait; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF ESSEX).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of Essex altering certain Polling Districts in the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS.
  Copy presented, of Index to Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Representatives Abroad on Trade and Subjects of General Interest (with Appendix), 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the, Table.
  ARKLOW HARBOUR.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Arklow Harbour Commissioners and Statement of Accounts for 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Copy presented, of Return for the mouths of July and August. 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon, the Table.
  PAWNBROKERS' RETURNS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Returns from the City Marshal of Dublin for the year ended 31st December, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2576 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 551 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Charitable Endowments (London).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered

  887
  2nd August, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 133.]

  ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  Order [28th February] for a Return relative thereto read, and discharged; and instead thereof—

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7.

  8.

  9.

  10.

  11.

  12.

  County

  Parish

  Number of applicants granted Allotments since 15th day of May, 1895.

  Number of applicants granted Allotments since 15th day of May, 1895.

  Total number of applicants to Parish Council for Allotments since 15th day of May, 1895.

  Number of Allotment holders and total acreage of Allotments at 1st day of April, 1901.

  Total annual rent payable to Parish Council for Allotment

  Number of applicants granted Common Pasture since 15th day of May, 1895.

  Number of applicants refused Common Pasture since 15th day of May, 1895.

  Total number of applicants to Parish Council for Common Pasture since 15th day of May, 1895.

  Number of holders of Common Pasture and total acreage of Common Pasture at 1st day of April, 1901.

  Total annual rent payable to County Council for Common Pasture.

  Number of Allotment holders

  Acreage.

  Number

  Acreage

  A.r.p.

  £. s. d.

  A. r. p.

  £ s. d.

  II.—The proceedings of County Councils in regard to representations by Parish Councils of Orders under the Local

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7

  8.

  County

  Parish

  Date of each representation from Parish Council to County Council as to land for Allotments.

  Orders made by County council for taking land on lease compulsorily for Allotments.

  Date of appeal (if any) to Local Government Board from decision of County Council.

  Date of Local Government Board Order (if any) overruling decision of County Council.

  Date of memorial (if any) presented to Local Government Board praying for further inquiry.

  Date of final decision (if any) of Local Government Board.

  Granted by County Council.

  Refused by County Council.

  Date of Order.

  Acreage of land authorised to be taken for Allotments.

  Annual rent pay able by Paris Council for such land.

  (1) Confirming Order.

  (2) Rejecting Order.

  A. r. p.

  £ s. d.

  —(Mr. Eugene Wason.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) INQUIRY (WEXFORD).
  Return ordered, "giving the Report of the Proceedings of the Local Government Board Inquiry into the question of the Salaries of the County and Assistant Surveyors held at Wexford on the 16th and 17th days of April."—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)
  Return ordered, "showing—
  —The proceedings of Parish Councils in regard to Allotments and Common Pasture under Section 20 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894.
  Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Section 26, authorising land to be taken on lease compulsorily for Allotments.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (LICENSED HOUSES).
  Address for "Return showing the lumber of fully-licensed Public Houses and the number of Beer Houses upon the states of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the Metropolitan District which have been already suppressed by the Commissioners since the date of a Report

  889
  of a Select Committee of the Board made in the year 1883 (see House of Lords Return, No. 175, of Session 1883), and the numbers of those which the Commissioners have decided to suppress upon the determination of the current leases."—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)

  SALE OF INTOXICANTS (REFUSAL OF LICENCES).
  Address for "Return of the number of Licences for the sale of Intoxicants in the United Kingdom the renewal of which has been refused by the licensing authority during the year ending in October, 1900, and the grounds of such refusals."—(Mr. Tomkinson.)

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  Sir JAMES FERGUSSONreported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had appointed Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
  Sir JAMES FERGUSSONfurther reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had agreed to the following Resolution:—That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel be and he is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place in case of necessity.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—JAMESON RAID—POSITION OF THE CHARTERED COMPANY.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, if the Government are unwilling to take legal action against the Chartered Company in respect of the Jameson Raid, he will sell any rights pertaining thereto that the British Government may have as successors to the Transvaal Government, and at what price.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have never stated
  890
  that His Majesty's Government were unwilling to take legal action in this matter, but that they were advised that they had no legal rights. I have no reason to believe that a purchaser can be found for rights which we are told on the highest authority do not exist.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House who his legal advisers are? And is he aware that the coffers of the Imperial Exchequer are empty—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is arguing the question.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Will the light hon. Gentleman kindly state who his legal advisers are?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The ordinary advisers of the Crown.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer one other question? Will he sell the rights if a purchaser can be found to take them, seeing that the coffers of the Exchequer are empty, and that an honest penny may thus be earned?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Any tender which the hon. Member may wish to make had better be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the Law advisers send their fees as conscience, money to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

  MR. MERRIMAN'S LETTER OF 11TH MARCH, 1898.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the motion introduced in the House of Assembly in Cape Colony on 9th October by the hon. J. X. Merriman, declaring the publication, without his permission, by the Colonial Secretary of Mr. Merriman's letter to President Steyn, dated 11th March, 1898, to be deprecated, and to Mr. Merriman's statement that Sir Alfred Milner had forwarded that letter without the knowledge of Mr. Merriman to the Colonial Secretary, and had, with

  891
  the Colonial Secretary, been guilty of a breach of the ordinary decencies and courtesies of official life; and whether he has any explanation to offer to these statements.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the report of a debate in the Cape House of Assembly in which Mr. Merriman attacked the High Commissioner and myself in moving a resolution deprecating the publication of his letter. The resolution was rejected by the Cape House, and I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was the resolution rejected by a majority of three, at a time when there were six Members away?
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he calls the speech an attack upon himself?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is arguing.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will publish his own letter that he sent back with the Rhodes correspondence?
  MR. SPEAKER: That question is out of order.

  PROPOSED DEPORTATION OF BOER PRISONERS TO TASMANIA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Australian Commonwealth Government have refused to allow Boer prisoners to be imprisoned in Tasmania, and whether, in view of this refusal, the Imperial Government still intends to send any prisoners to Australasia.
  The following question also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Federal Cabinet of the Australian Commonwealth, at its first sitting in Melbourne on 11th April, decided to reject the recommendation
  892
  of the Colonial Secretary that Boer prisoners should be sent to Tasmania; and what course does he propose to adopt in view of the action of the Federal Cabinet.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I telegraphed to the Governor-General of Australia on 14th March requesting him to ascertain from his Ministers whether they were willing that I should address an inquiry to the Governor of Tasmania asking if any Boer prisoners could be accommodated in Tasmania, and if so, how many. I added that his Ministers would, of course, understand that if there were any local objections His Majesty's Government would not desire to press the suggestion. I was informed by Lord Hopetoun that although the Tasmanian Government would be willing to receive Boer prisoners, the Federal Government were averse to the proposal. The idea was accordingly at once abandoned. This reply also answers the question on the same subject addressed to me by the hon. Member for South Donegal.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Were not the last convicts sent to Tasmania Irish Nationalists?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of my question.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; I said the proposal had been immediately abandoned.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then, where are these prisoners to be sent?
  [No answer was returned.]

  SOUTH AFRICAN HIGH COMMISSIONER'S CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the High Commissioner's Consultative Committee has as its secretary Mr. R. J. Pakeman, who wrote an atricle in the Johannesburg Star, entitled "The Dead Duke" (at the time when the late Duke of Clarence was awaiting burial); whether the British population of Johannesburg compelled

  893
  Mr. Pakeman to leave for Durban in consequence of this article; and whether this committee has held meetings at Government House, the official residence of the High Commissioner.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Pakeman is hon. secretary to the committee, but I have no information as to the newspaper article referred to, and I have received no complaints in regard to his appointment to this unpaid position.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Uitlanders on the subject?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Pakeman is in a sense representative of the Uitlanders on a committee appointed by the Government to assist me in dealing with the question of the refugees, and they would naturally be the first persons to complain if they thought they had any right to complain. I believe there is great doubt—this much I may say—whether Mr. Pakeman was the author of the article.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The statement I quoted appeared in the public newspapers of South Africa.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; but everything which appears in the public newspapers is not necessarily true.

  FLOGGING SOUTH AFRICAN NATIVES
  MR. OSMOND-WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the new justices whom Sir Alfred Milner will appoint will have power to administer as many as twenty-five lashes to any native culprit who may come before them; and, if so, whether, in view of that part of the King's Speech which said our object was to establish in South Africa equal rights to all white people and protection and justice to the native pouplation, he will reconsider the appointment of magistrates with these powers.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received no official information, but I shall take the opportunity of Sir Alfred Milner's visit to this country to discuss the matter with him.

  SOUTH AFRICAN LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of the Commission on Land in South Africa, presided over by the Secretary to the Admiralty, will be published.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated in reply to a previous question, I have forwarded the Report to Sir Alfred Milner for his observations, and when I receive them I will consider whether it is desirable to publish the Report.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary to the Admiralty has quoted from the Report in a speech to the Orangemen of Belfast?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: On the contrary, I know that he has not done so.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And I know that he has.

  SOUTH AFRICAN DESPATCHES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can explain why the despatch received from Sir A. Milner in February last was only published this week; and whether, in future, important messages from South Africa will be laid before Parliament as soon as they are received.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There was in my opinion no necessity in the public interest for the immediate publication of the despatch in question, which was kept back with other matter in the expectation that further despatches of interest might be received which would be included in the publication of Papers. Owing to the continuance of the war, the progress in regard to civil administration has been slower than I anticipated and the publication of Papers was only finally decided upon when Sir A. Milner's request for leave was received, which I considered should be immediately laid before Parliament.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Was not the despatch which the right hon.

  895
  Gentleman says it was not in the public interest to publish the one in which Sir Alfred Milner stated that affairs were now worse in the Transvaal than they were six months ago?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say it was not in the interest of the public to publish it. I said its immediate publication was not necessary in the public interest, and it has never been the custom for any Department of the Government to publish every despatch immediately it is received.

  CAMPS OF CONCENTRATION.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House of the number of camps of concentration formed by the military authorities in South Africa; where they are situated; what is the approximate number of men, women, and children confined in each; what is the nature of the shelter erected; whether the system of diminished rations for the women and children whose husbands and fathers have not yet surrendered is still in practice with the sanction of His Majesty's Government; whether records of the births and deaths in these camps have been and are accurately preserved; what provision exists at each camp for the medical attendance and nursing of the sick; and what arrangements have been made for the education of the children confined in the camps.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): It is not possible within the limits of a reply to a question to give all the detailed information required, and, further, such information as has reached me at present is confined to the Transvaal. These camps and numbers of refugees, so far as we are aware, are as follows:—Barberton, 703; Heidelberg, 1,307; Irene, 1,497; Johannesburg, 5,487; Klerksdorp,
  456; Middelburg, 977; Potchefstroom, 5,373; Standerton, 1,342; Vereeniging, 661; Volksrust, 2,068; Mafeking, 800–20,671. There are also
  434 self-supporting refugees. The nature of the shelter varies according to the locality, solid buildings being used where possible. All refugees were placed
  896
  on the same scale of rations on 27th February. Every provision has been made for medical attendance, and the education of the children is being conducted in sheds or marquees according to the accommodation. Sir Alfred Milner is giving his personal attention to improving the conditions of life in these camps. Records of births and deaths are preserved, and I have telegraphed for figures.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Are not the children Dutch-speaking children, and is the education given in English?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
  AN HON. MEMBER: How many of the camps has Sir Alfred Milner personally visited?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the authorities at Port Elizabeth?
  MR. BRODRICK: I asked Lord Kitchener for a general Report on the whole of the camps, and he has sent me what he could get before the last mail. I hope to get more.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: Is the wholesale deportation of non-combatants in a State admittedly, prior to the war, a free, sovereign and independent State—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. HAVILAND BURKEremained standing.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member persists in standing up after I have risen to call him to order, I shall have to call serious attention to his conduct.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: I beg to say that as a, new Member I might be reasonably excused.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member tells me that he was not aware that there was any such rule I shall accept his statement.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of Boer women and children detained in camps by the British authorities, and what the death rate has been amongst them since they were brought into camps from their homes.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have telegraphed to Lord Kitchener for the figures desired by the hon. Member.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: When shall I put the question down again?
  MR. BRODRICK: In a week or so. It requires careful investigation.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: This day week.

  AMERICAN CHARITABLE RELIEF FOR BOER NON-COMBATANTS.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to an appeal by the wife of the British Military Governor of Pretoria to the American public for funds to provide clothing for the Boer women and children confined by the military authorities in the camps of concentration in South Africa; and whether His Majesty's Government will give instructions that all reasonable facilities by way of access to the camps shall be given to those desirous of alleviating the situation and mitigating the sufferings of the women and children therein confined.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am aware that the Governor of Pretoria has opened a subscription list for funds to supplement the issues made to the Boer prisoners. I have received some information as regards the camps in the Transvaal, but I have not yet received a Report on those in the Orange Colony and Cape Colony. As regards the former, I am informed that every facility of access to the camps is granted. Admittance is permitted on application to the head officer or local superintendent. The authorities are and have been for some time in communication with various charitable institutions regarding aid to the refugees, and have received expressions of thanks. The refugees themselves are allowed to freely
  898
  visit the towns adjacent to their camps, and stores have been as far as practicable established in the camps themselves.

  COST OF THE WAR.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the average weekly cost of the war in South Africa for the last ten weeks.
  MR. BRODRICK: The average cost of the war for the last ten weeks may be taken approximately at about one and a half millions a week.

  VOLUNTEERS AND YEOMANRY WAR GRATUITY.
  MR. GUTHRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the men serving in Volunteer and Yeomanry corps receiving higher pay than the Regular troops will receive the special war gratuity.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir; the gratuity is granted to all commissioned officers and attested men, irrespective of the rate of pay.

  RETURN OF TROOPS—LOYAL SUFFOLK HUSSARS.
  MR. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any probability of the early recall of the Loyal Suffolk Hussars.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not yet in a position to say when these men will be recalled.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not replace them by the Household Brigade?

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY—TERMS OF SERVICE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the period of service of the members of the Imperial Yeomanry who volunteerd for war was understood to be for one year, that members of this force volunteered for the war on the faith of that understanding, and that some of them who so volunteered left situations in this country which cannot be kept open for them much longer, whether he can explain

  899
  why the Imperial Yeomanry, in breach of the understanding on which they volunteered, have been detained in South Africa while other Volunteers who went under similar conditions, and Regulars, notably the Household Cavalry, whoso service has been shorter, have been allowed to return home, and whether the War Office will give an intimation to these men that they will be immediately recalled.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member is mistaken. The men were enlisted for a year or until the conclusion of the war. Every consideration will be shown to them which is compatible with the public service.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why were the Household Brigade allowed to come home before the irregulars?
  MR. BRODRICK: I answered that question last Friday.*

  PAY OF YEOMANRY AT THE FRONT.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the pay of the Yeomanry serving at the front has been reduced to cover the cost of their rations or for any other cause.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member's question is not understood. Nothing is known of any such reduction.

  SOLDIERS IN HOSPITAL IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state approximately the number of troops at present in hospital in South Africa.
  MR. BRODRICK: The House has been informed on previous occasions that as the numbers vary from day to day, and as we receive no telegraphic information about them, it is not practicable to give the required information. The last Report, dated
  8th March, 1901, showed 13,993.

  MILITARY PRESS CENSORS AND FALSE NEWS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether
  * See page 780.
  900
  his attention has been directed to the letter of Captain H. G. Classon, South Wales Borderers, the officer in command of the post captured at
  Modderfontein, contradicting the statement in a Reuter's cablegram dated Krugersdorp, 2nd February, that Dr. Walker, who was amongst the killed at Modderfontein, had received three bullet wounds and was finally despatched by a Boer, who battered in his skull with a stone, and stating that Dr. Walker was hit only once by a stray bullet and died in the afternoon from the effects of the wound, and that the Boer General expressed his deep regret at the occurrence, and that every possible kindness was shown to the wounded British soldiers by the Boers; and what explanation has the War Office to give for the permission of the Military Press Censor to pass this Reuter's telegram.
  MR. BRODRICK: I believe that statements to this effect have appeared in the press. Military press censors are not in any way responsible for the accuracy of the facts alleged in telegrams passed by them. Their duty is limited to the prevention of the publication of statements or intelligence which may assist the enemy.

  CIVILIAN HOSPITAL ORDERLIES.
  MR. GUTHRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of civilians, exclusive of doctors and natives, employed in the private, field, and stationary hospitals during the course of the war; and seeing that many of these men threw up lucrative positions in order to volunteer for service, that the pay they received was by no means equal to what they were previously earning at home, and that some of them have not been reinstated in the positions they occupied before the war, he will reconsider his determination not to allow these men the same war gratuity that is to be awarded to the men of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who performed exactly similar work.
  MR. BRODRICK: About 860 civilians exclusive of doctors and nurses, were employed in the private hospitals, including the hospital ships "Princess of Wales" and "Maine"; these were not

  901
  paid from Government funds. About 1,600 men of the St John Ambulance Brigade were employed by Government under a civil contract; and as part of their remuneration they receive a gratuity equal to, or in case of those re-engaged, exceeding the war gratuity received by the men of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Only civilians who have enlisted into one of the local medical corps in South Africa are entitled to the war gratuity. The House will understand that it is not feasible to grant the war gratuity to men serving on civil engagements. Such a course would expose the Government to endless claims on the part of civilians employed on other semi-military service during the campaign.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS SERVING AS TROOPERS.
  LIEUT.-COL. PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a senior subaltern of the 4th Volunteer Battalion "The Queen's" (Royal West Surrey Regiment), on having volunteered and been accepted as a trooper in the Imperial Yeomanry, was compelled to resign his commission; and whether it is obligatory on an officer of Volunteers desiring to serve either as a non-commissioned officer or private in the Imperial Yeomanry or in a Volunteer Active Service Company in South Africa to resign his commission in his Volunteer corps.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): Yes, Sir; I am aware of the case. It is obviously impossible to permit any person to occupy the position of officer and soldier at the same time. Any Imperial Yeoman, or other soldier so situated, will, when discharged from his present engagement, be considered for reinstatement without loss of seniority.

  INSUBORDINATION—UNDER—AGE RECRUITS—CASE OF MICHAEL McMAHON.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of Michael McMahon, now a prisoner in
  902
  Gosport gaol, whose offence was that he struck a sergeant, who he allegesstruck him first, for going for a drink of water at the Modder River; is he aware that this boy joined the County Limerick Militia without the consent of his widowed mother, when he was not fifteen years old, that he volunteered into the 3rd Royal Minister Fusiliers, and was sent to South Africa, and in ten weeks marched 800 miles; and whether, taking this boy's age into account, and the fact that he has already spent five months in prison, he will take his case into consideration with a view of remitting the remainder of his sentence.
  LORD STANLEY: It is presumed that No. 6449, Private Michael McMahon, 1st Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers, is the man referred to. He was tried by general court-martial on November 11th for striking his superior officer, and again on November 13th for disobeying the lawful command of a superior officer, and was sentenced to one year for the first offence, and to one year and discharge with ignominy for the second. Nothing is known about the statements made in the second paragraph of the question. He stated his age at seventeen, and had the physical equivalents. As to the final paragraph, the Commander-in-Chief decided about a fortnight ago to make a partial remission of his imprisonment, contingent on his good behaviour in prison.
  MR. JOYCE: Is it not the fact that this boy when sentenced was under sixteen years of age, and that he was a mere schoolboy fighting the battles in South Africa?
  LORD STANLEY: He gave his age as seventeen and looked like it.
  MR. JOYCE: If I can prove he was under sixteen at the time sentence was passed, will the noble Lord see that the remainder of his punishment is remitted?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When does the noble Lord expect to give me the particulars of sentences on soldiers in South Africa about which I have several times questioned him?
  LORD STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot answer that. It hardly arises out of the question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How many Irish soldiers have you in gaol?
  [No answer was given.]

  SOLDIERS' DEPENDENTS—CASE OF GEORGE POWELL.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will take the case of the wife and children of George Powell, R.A., No, 82,930, into his consideration, seeing that this man has over ten years good service, never had a crime, that he married without leave in 1893, and that his wife lived with him in Woolwich until he was sent to South Africa, leaving his wife with three children at home with a very small sum allotted to them from his pay, quite insufficient to keep them; and, whether, if on inquiry this woman's statement is found to be correct, he will order such increase in the pay as will keep herself and her children.
  LORD STANLEY: If this soldier would have been entitled to transfer to the Reserve had no war taken place, his wife can be given separation allowance; but no separation allowance can be given to the wives of men married without leave who are not on the strength of the regiment.
  MR. JOYCE: Will the noble Lord inquire if this man's commanding officer did not promise that his wife should be placed on the strength of the regiment? Will he increase the grant to her?
  LORD STANLEY: If there is any question of hard treatment in the matter I shall be most happy to take it into consideration.

  RETURNED SOLDIERS' CIVILIAN SUITS.
  MR. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the contract price for the civilian suit which the Government presents to each soldier on his return to civilian life has recently been reduced from 12s. 9d. to 11s. 9d.; and, if so,
  904
  what precautions are taken that the contractor can make a reasonable profit and pay a reasonable wage.
  LORD STANLEY: The old rate of 11s. 9d., which was temporarily raised owing to the increase in price of the raw material, has now been reverted to. The War Office has nothing to do with the profits of a contractor, but only insists that the wages paid in the execution of the contract shall be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district.
  MR. ALLEN: In view of the price, which cannot be termed extravagant, will the noble Lord see that the wage regulations are strictly enforced?
  LORD STANLEY: Certainly not.

  ROYAL ENGINEER CORPS ADJUTANTS.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether all the Royal Engineer Corps in the Home district have been without the services of adjutants from the Regular forces for at least a year; and, if so, can he state when it is proposed to remedy this state of things.
  LORD STANLEY: It is not possible to provide adjutants from the Regular forces until the Royal Engineer officers return from South Africa. Their work has been meanwhile performed by acting adjutants selected from the Volunteer corps concerned.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL: Seeing that the Volunteer adjutants have done the work so well, cannot they be given the temporary rank of captain in the Army?
  LORD STANLEY: I am afraid that that does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  ARMY MANŒUVRES.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what Army manœuvres are proposed to be carried out this year.
  MR. BRODRICK: There will be no Army manœuvres in 1901, but only some district camps for tactical exercises.
  MR. FLYNN: Are the manœuvres in South Africa enough for the British troops just now?

  VOLUNTEERS—CLASH FIRING.
  COLONEL ROYDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the scarcity of range accommodation in parts of the country and the distance rifle butts are frequently from the quarters of Volunteers, he will consider the relaxation of the condition requiring the completion of class firing before going into camp, bearing especially in mind that some camps have for local reasons to be held early in the musketry season.
  MR. BRODRICK: The special circumstances of any particular corps in any particular year will be given careful consideration. But the military authorities strongly deprecate any amendment of the regulations in the direction suggested.

  ARMY COMMISSIONS—PHYSICAL QUALIFICATIONS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to modify the requirements of the War Office as to height and weight of gentlemen competing for commissions in the Regular forces.
  MR BRODRICK: The physical standards for candidates for commissions in the Regular forces are under consideration.

  EXPLOSIVES COMMITTEE—PATENTS TAKEN OUT IN MEMBERS' NAMES.
  MR WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that two of the members of Lord Rayleigh's Committee on Explosives are taking out patents in their own names for improvements in detonators and nitro-explosives for artillery; and whether this action is consistent with their position as members of the Committee on which they are serving.
  MR. BRODRICK: Sir William Roberts-Austen and Sir William Crookes,
  906
  members of the Explosives Committee, have taken out patents in connection with explosives. These patents were taken out with my authority. The specifications were prepared by the patent expert of the War Office, and have been assigned to the Secretary of State for War, the arrangements having been made by the Treasury Solicitor, and the specifications are kept secret. These gentlemen having, in the course of their experiments as members of the Committee made certain discoveries which the Committee considered might prove of value to the State, placed their discoveries unreservedly at the disposal of His Majesty's Government. They have not received, nor do they desire to receive, any payment for the discoveries so made. They have not got, nor do they intend to get, any personal profit out of them. The only reason why the patents have been taken out is that the Committee may not be debarred by some subsequent inventor from making use of their own results. It is obvious that, unless the Government directs either the publication or the patenting of such discoveries as they are made, this danger cannot be avoided. The Committee are studiously careful to avoid everything approaching to appropriation of discoveries communicated to them by inventors.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Have these gentlemen dealt with the foreign rights in the patents?
  MR. BRODRICK: So far as the Government think it necessary to obtain the foreign rights, the question of those rights will be considered.
  MR. TULLY: Was there not a similar transaction with reference to the invention of cordite?
  [No answer was returned.]

  REPORT ON CONTINENTAL RIFLE RANGES.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the officers who went abroad last year to inspect Continental rifle ranges have reported; and, if so, whether the Report will be laid before Parliament.
  LORD STANLEY: The answer to both questions is—Yes, Sir.

  DURR WATER-TUBE BOILERS.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state how many Durr water-tube boilers have been ordered from Germany; what is the total cost of same; whether the cost includes fitting on board; what vessel are they to be fitted in; and if any guarantee is given to the Admiralty by the patentees for results in continuous steaming; also, what is the nature of the defects developed in the Belleville boilers during the last trials of His Majesty's ship "Formidable."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Eight water-tube boilers of the Durr type have been ordered from Germany. The total cost of the boilers is £19,450. This is exclusive of spare parts and fitting on board. The boilers are to be placed on board H.M.S.
  "Medusa." They have been guaranteed by the maker to give 155,000 lbs. dry steam per hour from feed water at 80 deg. F., with an air pressure of
  1½ inches; 104,000 lbs. per hour with ½ inch air pressure (that used for continuous steaming); and 80,000 lbs. per hour with natural draught. The only defects observed in the boilers of H.M.S. "Formidable" on recent trials were one nickel sleeve in number ten boiler at the junction of the feed collector with the element split, and a few others leaking slightly. The trial and the preliminary trial showed that greater provision for the moving of the steam pipes under expansion was required, and steps are now being taken to remedy the defect arising from this cause.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Why is not the "Formidable" at sea if the defects are so slight?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Owing to the expansion of the steam pipes it has been found necessary to make a readjustment, which, as the hon. Member knows, is a serious piece of work.

  CHINA—FIRE AT PEKING PALACE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under
  908
  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received an official confirmation of the recent fire at the Peking Palace; whether any evidence as to the cause of the conflagration has been discovered; and whether any estimate of the damage done to the palace and its contents can be given.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): His Majesty's Government have learned from His Majesty's Minister at Peking with very great regret that a part of the palace which was occupied by Field Marshal Count von Waldersee and his staff was burnt down on the night of the 17th instant, and that General Schwarzkoff, the Chief of the Staff, most unfortunately lost his life on that occasion. The origin of the fire was unknown. His Majesty's Government have not received any estimate of the damage done.

  INDEMNITY CLAIMS OF THE VARIOUS POWERS.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the indemnity demanded by Great Britain from China amounts to £5,000,000; and, if not, whether he can yet state the amount to be demanded; and, whether such indemnity includes the amounts due as compensation to private persons.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The amount of the British claim is not yet finally settled. It will include amounts due as compensation to private persons.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the indemnity asked from China by Russia is over £17,000,000, whereas the indemnity asked by Germany and England amount to only £7,000,000 and £5,000,000 respectively; and whether the Russian Government have offered to reduce their indemnity if the Russo-Chinese agreement regarding Manchuria be adopted by China.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It is not possible to give positive information as to the amounts of the indemnities claimed by

  909
  other Governments, as with the exception of the United States' claim for twenty million dollars the amounts have not been finally specified by the Powers concerned. His Majesty's Government are not yet in a position to state the exact amount of the British claim. We have no information of an offer by the Russian Government to reduce their claim if the Chinese Government accept the proposed Manchurian agreement.

  CHINA, RUSSIA, AND JAPAN.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to reported negotiations between Russia and Japan for the independent settlement of Chinese questions.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have no information of any such negotiations.

  PLANS OF PEKING.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the further correspondence respecting events at Peking, China, No.
  3, 1901, was issued without the three plans being printed along with it, which were sent with it by our Minister in Peking; and whether, seeing the value such plans are, he will order them to be printed forthwith and distributed amongst the Members along with the other Papers on China.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The plans will be ready for distribution in about ten days, if
  the House desires to have them.

  CRETE—PAPERS ON ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will communicate to the House the Report of the High Commissioner of Crete upon the administration of that island for the past two years, together with the remarks of the British Consul at Candia upon that Report, and any other information which in the public interest may now be made known.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Papers respecting the administration and financial condition of Crete up to the end of last year are nearly ready for presentation, and will be distributed very shortly. No Report such as is mentioned in the question is, however, included amongst them.

  ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE KING'S ACCESSION—SPECIAL MISSIONS TO FOREIGN COURTS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number and the estimated cost of the Special Missions which have been sent to foreign Courts to announce the King's Accession; what are the precedents for this procedure; and whether, considering the present national burdens and the improved modern means of communication, some more economical method of conveying the information might not have been arranged.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Four Special Embassies proceeded abroad to announce the King's Accession. The accounts have not yet been received, and no estimate of the cost can at present be given. There are no precedents for the despatch of such Missions from this country, but the arrangements for conveying the announcement were made in conformity with the practice now generally observed on the accession of a Sovereign.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any negotiations are about to be entered into with France in reference to her claims in Newfoundland.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government is in communication with the French Government on the subject of the Newfoundland Fisheries question.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS IN THE COLONIES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Paper he promised

  911
  some time ago in reference to the old age pension question in the colonies has yet been published; and whether copies will be supplied to Members of the House.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The New Zealand Acts and Reports and the New South Wales Act, referred to in the answer which I gave to the hon. Member last February, have already been placed in the Library of the House; copies of the Acts passed in Victoria will now be similarly placed, but no further Reports on the working of these colonial schemes have since been received.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will they also be distributed among Members?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I do not think that that is necessary.

  NEW COAL DUTY—RUNNING CONTRACTS.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to
  ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the Finance Act of the year being so framed as to make a provision making a person who made a contract in this country for the sale of coal abroad to break his contract unless the person with whom he made the contract abroad were willing to pay the 1s. Customs Export Duty, such last-mentioned person would be bound by such a provision, or whether he might still take proceedings abroad to enforce the performance, or to recover damages for the non-performance of the original contract.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The hon. Member asks me what would happen if a hypothetical clause, which is not yet before the House, became law in the case of a contract, with the provisions of which I am not acquainted. I am afraid that if I were a lawyer I should be very careful not to answer such a question; not being a lawyer I cannot.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: What has the right hon. Gentleman to say to the suggestion made last Friday that the colliery proprietors of this country should be enabled to break their contracts in cases—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is debating the question.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state approximately the quantity of coal sold for exportation abroad during the financial year ending 31st March, 1902, under contracts entered into before the 19th April last.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not in possession of the information referred to.

  COAL OUTPUT OF BRITISH COLONIES.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what was the approximate output of coal of the British colonies in the year 1900, and what was the approximate total amount of coal exported from these colonies in the year referred to.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The latest statistics available are those for 1899, in which year the output of coal from the British colonies amounted to 2,003,705 tons, and the exports, which include re-exports, to 4,509,822 tons.

  UNCLAIMED BALANCES RETURN.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant the Return as to unclaimed balances in Government Departments appearing on this day's Paper.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am afraid the, Return cannot be given. I will write to the hon. Member and explain the objections to giving it.

  UNCLAIMED CHANCERY FUNDS.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what is the total amount received by the Treasury in respect of unclaimed moneys since the date of the Act of 1872 (35 and 36 Vic.) Court of Chancery Funds (c. 44).
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The only funds in the possession of the Chancery and other Courts which can be described

  913
  as unclaimed funds are the so-called Dormant Funds—that is, funds which have not been dealt with for fifteen years and upwards. A list of these funds is published triennially in the London Gazette. The last list was issued in 1899. These funds are held by the Paymaster General subject to the orders of the Supreme Court. None of them are held by the Treasury.

  LICENSING LEGISLATION—THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now inform the House when he will introduce the Bill for the amendment of the Licensing Laws which was promised in the King's Speech at the beginning of the session.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  SMITHFIELD MARKET.
  MR. OSMOND-WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that English salesmen are being driven out of Smithfield Market by Dutch and American traders; that within the past few weeks several transfers have been allowed by the Markets Sub-Committee; and that in one case the sum of £16,000 was paid by American traders to acquire a stall in Central Avenue at Smithfield, and that another American firm paid £12,500 for an inferior position; whether there are any regulations in Smithfield which prohibit trafficking in market sites; and whether something can be done to put a stop to foreign firms ousting the English, Irish, and Scotch traders from their own market.
  MR. RITCHIE: It appears to be the fact that transfers of the tenancies of premises in Smithfield Market frequently take place, and during the last fifteen months there have been two cases which correspond more or less to the description at the end of the first paragraph of the question. Regulations require that a full disclosure of the terms and of the
  914
  nature and extent of the trade and all other facts and circumstances connected with any proposed transfer shall be made to the Central Markets Committee, and I am informed that this is done in every case. I am not aware that it is correct to say that English salesmen are being driven out by Dutch and American tradesmen. Subject to the approval of the Corporation these transfers appear to be conducted according to the principles ordinarily governing the disposal of the goodwill of a business. In any case I have no powers of interference.

  IRISH LIGHTS—FASTNET ROCK.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the reasons why the Irish Lights Commissioners refuse permission to British shipowners to establish and maintain at their own cost a reporting station on the Fast-net Rock, which is desired by Lloyds, the Chamber of Shipping, several large steamship owners' associations, and the Cork Harbour Commissioners, on the ground that the Fastnet being the point for which all ships make in following the southern route across the Atlantic, is the most suitable reporting station; and whether the difficulties which formerly arose owing to the breaking of the telegraph cable being now removed by wireless telegraphy, he will use his influence with the Irish Lights Commissioners to establish a reporting station on the Fastnet as early as practicable.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Board of Trade have been in communication with the Irish Lights Commissioners on this matter. The latter are at present considering the best arrangements to be made for housing the additional light-keepers on the Tuskar and Fastnet Lighthouses, which will be necessary for the establishment of a system of private signalling. The difficulties are very considerable, both on this point and as regards the method of signalling, but the consideration of the subject will be pressed forward.

  HOG ISLAND CHANNEL—DANGER TO NAVIGATION.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  915
  Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that six years ago a Greek brig put into Kilrush for repairs and was waterlogged outside the Shannon and became a total wreck off Cappa pier; that the wreck was sold by auction and the purchaser has never been able to float her, and owing to a storm several sections of the wreck drifted up the channel between Hog Island and the mainland, and are a danger to navigation and prevent the bay being fished for salmon; and will he take steps to have these portions of the wreck removed.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Neither the Board of Trade nor the Commissioners of Irish Lights have any information as to the wreck in question. I will cause inquiry to be made of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners, within whose jurisdiction the wreck is probably situated.

  ELECTRICAL ENERGY BILLS.
  MR. REA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the multiplication of the private Bills of companies established for the distribution of electrical energy, he intends to promote legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Joint Committee of 1898 to confer additional powers upon the Board of Trade, to enable the promoters of such Bills to acquire the necessary powers by means of Provisional Orders instead or by private Acts.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The recommendations of the Joint Committee have not been lost sight of, but I am unable to make any definite statement at present.

  DEATH CERTIFICATES—CASE OF LILY GRAVES.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the certificate of death given in the case of a certain Lily Graves, whether he is aware that it is alleged that the certificate was so far false that it omitted a material circumstance, and that the Registrar General has been asked, and has declined to take any action in respect of such allegation; and
  916
  whether the Home Secretary will take steps, either in regard to this particular certificate or generally, to safeguard the accuracy of certificates of death.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this question. The reply to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. As regards the third paragraph, I have no authority to interfere in the matter, but I may state that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1874, provides that any person who wilfully makes a false certificate for the purpose of the Act shall be liable to a penalty. There can be no doubt that the omission from the certificate of death of the fact that the deceased person died while under the influence of an anæsthetic is to be regretted but I understand that the Registrar General was not satisfied that the omission constituted a definite offence against the Act, and that under all the circumstances of the case he did not consider that any action could usefully be taken by him, more especially as the matter was not brought under his notice until eight months after the death occurred.

  OVERCROWDING IN EAST LONDON—PAPUER ALIENS.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in the Census Returns it will be possible, with a view to supplying reliable information on the question of overcrowding in East London, to provide tabulated information as to the-number of one to six-roomed tenements, and the number of their respective occupants; and whether it is possible
  to include an accurate Return of the number of pauper aliens within the Metropolitan area.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Information as to the number of tenements consisting of one, two, three, and four rooms, with the number of occupants of each will be given, but it will not be possible to supply similar information with respect to tenements of five and six rooms. The answer to the second paragraph of the question must be in the negative.

  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of poor law officers in receipt of superannuation allowances and the total amount of these allowances in the year 1895, and what has been the increase, if any, in the number of officers receiving pensions, and the increase of the amount of the pensions since the passing of the Poor Law Superannuation Act of 1896.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not in possession of the particulars desired as regards the year 1895, but in the year ended at Lady Day, 1897, the pensions paid to poor law officers otherwise than under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act,
  1896, amounted to £40,800. The number of poor law officers to whom pensions under the Act of 1896 were granted during the year ended 29th September, 1897, was 335, and the number to whom pensions were paid in the year ended 29th September, 1900, was about 1,340. The amount paid under the Act of 1896 during the year ended Michaelmas, 1897, was £19,800, and during the year ended Michaelmas,
  1900, was about £74,500.

  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS COMMITTEE.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the reasons which have prompted him to abstain from moving for the appointment of a Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, contrary to the practice of many years.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): It has been decided not to reappoint the Committee.
  MR. M'KENNA: What is the reason for that?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: There are several, but a sufficient one is that the number of Bills during the last year or two has so largely increased that it has been found most difficult to get a
  918
  Committee to undertake the onerous work involved in the consideration of the Bills.
  MR. M'KENNA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least ten hon. Members have volunteered to serve on the Committee?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: That may be, but the hon. Member must be aware that at many of the sittings at which he acted as Chairman last year only two Members attended, and not always the same two. The matter has been very carefully considered by the Local Government Board and by others concerned, who have come to the conclusion that it would be better in the public interest to remit the duty to the ordinary Committees.
  MR. M'KENNA: The Committee over which I had the honour of presiding consisted of five members. The quorum was three. The usual attendance was of four members, and on many occasions all five were present.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This discussion cannot be carried on by question and answer.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Who is now to do the work hitherto done by the Committee?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that question.

  EDUCATION—REX v. COCKERTON.
  MAJOR EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the Cockerton judgment, he can reassure the minds of those concerned regarding the immediate or eventual closing of the evening continuation classes; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to prevent the closing of these classes.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I fear that no statement of mine will reassure the minds of those who have been persuaded to

  919
  expect the immediate or eventual closing of evening continuation schools; but no communications have reached the Board of Education which lead it to anticipate so disastrous an event. The Government await the decision of the London School Board as to an appeal to the House of Lords before considering what action on their part is necessary.

  WIMBLEDON SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the temporary accommodation provided by voluntary effort at Wimbledon has been condemned as in-sanitary, and that the plans proposed for new schools have been rejected by the local sanitary authority; and whether he will, without further delay, secure the provision of suitable and sufficient school accommodation by forming a school board in accordance with the wishes of the ratepayers as expressed at the statutory meeting held in July last.
  SIR J. GORST: NO, Sir; the Board of Education has no such information. The necessity for forming a school board has not yet arisen.

  SWANSEA POSTAL STAFF.
  SIR GEORGE NEWNES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the case of a sorting clerk at Swansea of ten years standing, promoted recently over the heads of telegraph clerks with services ranging from twelve to twenty-four years service; whether the sorting clerk has been passed over in his own department; and whether the Postmaster General can state the reasons which led to this promotion.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The case to which the hon. Member refers is presumably that of Mr. A. E. Samuel, who was recently promoted from the rank of sorting clerk and telegraphist on the postal side of the Swansea office to a clerkship, the duties of which are
  920
  partly postal and partly telegraph. Mr. Samuel was certified to be the best qualified officer on the whole class of sorting clerks and telegraphists, and he is fully competent to perform the duties, both postal and telegraph, of the post to which he has been promoted. It is true that he had
  been on one occasion passed over for promotion on the postal side, there being at the time among the juniors one officer who was better qualified.

  LEDBURY—EX-POSTMAN'S GRIEVANCE.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the case of W. Chambers, of Ledbury, who for thirty-two years was employed as an unestablished rural postman, and who had received six good conduct stripes, comes within the terms of the service rule regulating the grant of compassionate allowances or bonuses, instead of pension; and, if so, will this man be granted a bonus.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Although Chambers had altogether more than thirty-one years service, his wages were paid out of an allowance to the postmaster up to the 9th November, 1889, and until that date, therefore, he was a servant, not of the Department, but of the postmaster. Chambers's service subsequent to November, 1889, did not amount to fifteen years—the minimum period necessary to render him eligible for the award of a compassionate gratuity under the Superannuation Act, 1887—and it was not possible, therefore, to obtain for him on his retirement any award under the Superannuation Acts.

  HEBDEN BRIDGE—POSTMEN'S GRIEVANCES.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the number of relatives holding appointments on the same staff, he will inquire into complaints made by the postmen at the Hebden Bridge Post Office of the undue interference of the postmaster's wife, she acting as paid assistant to her husband.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The case to which the hon. Member refers appears to be one in which two of the postmen attached to the Hebden Bridge office refused to accept instructions given to them by the postmaster's wife, who is employed as his assistant. In this refusal the postmen were not justified. Full Reports have been made on the case, and the Postmaster General sees no reason to take any further action at present.

  COUNTY COUNCILLORS ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if it is necessary for a district councillor elected in March. 1901, who is absent on active service in South Africa, to make his declaration of office or attend the council within six months or any other period from the date of his election: or whether the Act 63 and 64 Vic., c. 46, applies to his case.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The Act 63 and 64 Vic, c. 46, applies to the case of an officer or soldier of the Auxiliary forces or Reserve forces who is on service in South Africa, so that no vacation of office or pecuniary penalty results from omission to make the declaration of office within the prescribed time or his non-attendance at the meetings of the council caused by absence in South Africa on service.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say it applies to councillors elected since it was passed?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I think so, Sir.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CASE OF SERGEANT JAMES SULLIVAN.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Sergeant James Sullivan, late of Mulranny, county Mayo, has recently been suspended from duty; and, if so, what was the charge on which he was suspended.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Sergeant
  922
  Sullivan was suspended from duty pending the investigation of a charge preferred against him of having assaulted a married woman. The result of investigation showed that there was no evidence to sustain the charge, and tended to prove that it was fabricated. The suspension has been removed and the sergeant entirely exonerated from the imputation brought against him.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us access to the evidence?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. The evidence was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, who had no hesitation in saying there was no case for prosecution. I have been through the evidence, and come to the same conclusion. I have no doubt whatever that the charge was fabricated.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Are we not told that all charges against policemen are fabrications?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  IRISH CREAMERIES.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the money placed at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture is about being used for the support of creameries in Ireland; and, if so, whether, instead of such expenditure, he will consider the advisability of encouraging farmers by supplying them with loans to procure separators to be used by their families, and thereby encourage home industry.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first query is in the negative. The Department is considering the question of making loans to farmers to enable them to purchase separators.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT—APPLICATIONS IN GRANARD UNION.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaints were made to him of the loss sustained by rural district councils by the rejection of numbers of representations

  923
  under the Labourers Acts, each of which had cost a considerable sum to bring before the inspector at the local inquiry; and whether, in the case of the Granard Union, county Longford, he can state the number of cottages applied for, the number rejected, and the principal grounds on which a number were rejected.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Complaints are sometimes made of the rejection by the Board, after a local inquiry, of applications for cottages, but not on the ground suggested. The applications from the Granard Union numbered 387, and the rejections 217. These were on the usual grounds—namely, informality of representations, defective service of notices, the applicants were not agricultural labourers, etc.

  IRISH UNION NURSES.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is yet in a position to make any statement as to the intention of the Irish Government to give facilities for the training of a certain number of girls in each union who could afterwards be employed as qualified nurses on the basis of getting back half the salary; and, if so, whether this change could be included in a Provisional Order to be confirmed by Parliament.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I can make no promise beyond that already given. The matter will not be lost sight of, but nothing can be done on this year's Estimates.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the urgency of this matter, he will take any steps to press this matter on this session, say before Whitsuntide?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not pledge myself to the opinion that the money should be voted, but at any rate I cannot approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year.

  KILLARNEY QUARTER SESSIONS.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  924
  of Ireland whether, seeing that it is the usual practice when there is no criminal business for disposal at quarter sessions to have the presiding judge presented with white gloves, he can explain the non-performance of this ceremony by the sheriff at the last Killarney Quarter Sessions; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Killarney quarter sessions district comprises that part of the county of Kerry where the United Irish League has most branches, and to the crimelessness of the district, he will give, instructions to the constabulary to desist from interfering with or watching those who attend the meetings of the United Irish League in future.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sub-sheriff was unable to attend at the opening of the quarter sessions, but presented the chairman with white gloves later in the day. The police do not interfere with persons attending the meetings of the League. They carry out detective duties incumbent upon all police forces with a discretion which calls for no further admonition on the part of the Government.

  CORK CITY CRIMINAL SESSIONS.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Recorder of Cork was presented with a pair of white gloves at the recent City Criminal Sessions; and whether there is any record of a similar presentation previous to the establishment of the United Irish League in the city of Cork.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative The incident was unprecedented, and eminently satisfactory. I have, however, failed to trace any causal connection between it and the operations of the League.

  UNCLAIMED BALANCES IN IRISH BANKS.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any means of information as to the amount of unclaimed balances in joint stock banks in Ireland; if not, whether there is any

  925
  obligation in law on such banks to give public notice as to unclaimed balances which have remained on their hands.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to each of these questions is in the negative.

  IRISH LABOURERS—PRIZES FOR INDUSTRY.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board will sanction the giving of small prizes (the value of which shall not exceed for each electoral division a limited sum) out of the rates to labourers holding cottages and plots of land from the rural district councils, with the view of encouraging the occupiers to keep their cottages and plots in good order.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board has no legal power to authorise rural district councils to expend any portion of their funds in the manner proposed. I am inquiring whether the Department of Agriculture is in a position to make payments for the purpose.

  IRISH ROAD SYSTEM.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the Provisional Order legalising the system of direct labour on the roads in Ireland will become law, so that the county councils in the country may be in a position to work the roads under the said system.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The final draft of the Provisional Order is now under consideration, and the Order will be laid before Parliament within the next fortnight. The delay is due to the fact that county and district councils have been given an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the draft Order.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House to discuss this Order before it is confirmed?
  MR. WYNDHAM: A question of that kind should be addressed to the Leader of the House. I am following the usual course in laying the Order on the Table,
  926
  and no doubt there will be adequate opportunity of discussing it.

  AGRICULTURAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN TUBBERCURRY.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that the rural district of Tubbercurry, county Sligo, although contributing its quota towards the promotion of agricultural and technical education in that county, is excluded by the Department of Agriculture from participating in the benefits of the scheme adopted by the county committee, on the ground that portion of the union is scheduled as a congested area; and whether, seeing that the other rural districts of the county are similarly circumstanced, being partly scheduled, he can explain why Tubbercurry, a purely agricultural district, has been thus treated; and what steps will be taken to have the matter remedied.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply of 1st April.* It has been found necessary to exclude from the live-stock schemes districts-which are mainly congested, upon the ground that many of them object to pay for a service which they can obtain without payment from the Congested Districts Board. That being so, the Tubbercurry district will not be asked to rate itself for the live-stock scheme.

  DAVID FINLAY'S ESTATE, COUNTY CAVAN.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state on what date the tenants on the estate of the late David Finlay and others, situate in the county of Cavan, signed agreements to purchase their holdings through the Irish Land Commission; on what date were these agreements lodged with the Irish Land Commission; and what were the reasons that these agreements had not been lodged at an earlier date.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No proceedings: for the sale of the estate referred to in the question are pending in the Land Commission.
  * See page 361.

  CARRICK-ON-SHANNON WATER CHARGES.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received from the Carrick-on-Shannon No. 1 District Council representations to have the charge for the Carrick-on-Shannon Waterworks made a township charge, as was the case until the issue of a Sealed Order of the Local Government Board, and whether he can state the grounds on which the Local Government Board will not sanction this charge being a township rate under the provisions of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1900.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Representations to the effect stated have been received. The grounds upon which the Local Government Board based their action were the same as those which operated generally in regard to the making of the Order of 25th May, 1899, as to the chargeability of rural sanitary expenses. Carrick-on-Shannon is not a town or township under municipal government, and, therefore, not entitled to exceptional treatment.

  KERRY EVICTED FARMS.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of evicted farms in Kerry for which special police protection is necessary, the amount of the rent heretofore paid for these farms, and the cost of the police protection now afforded in connection with them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first query is 47. I have no official information as to the second query. There are no extra police in Kerry, and any expenses involved by the employment of men on protection duty are not, therefore, defrayed out of local rates. It is not practicable to state, with accuracy, the cost of the protection afforded, as the number of men employed s constantly changing.
  MR. CULLINAN: Is it a rule of the Irish Constabulary force for policemen to take evicted farms?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  DEFENDANTS' COSTS IN ABANDONED PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if the Government will bear the costs of Messrs. M'Inerney, Halpen, and Lynch in the prosecution against them which the Government did not persevere with to the end.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): There is no power to pay the costs of the accused, nor is this a case where that should be done, even if the power existed.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not the fact that the Government initiated the prosecution and then dropped it? Why should it not bear the costs incurred by these gentlemen?
  MR. ATKINSON: It is true that the Government took the proceedings and then, at the solicitation of the hon. Member, dropped them.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Were they not dropped in consequence of a judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland? Why should these men have to pay the cost of defending themselves against accusations which were untrue?
  [No answer was returned.]

  IRISH POOR RATE COLLECTOR.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether a person who was appointed a poor rate collector prior to the passing of the Local Government Act, 1898, and was an existing officer under that Act, and was continued in office under the county council, is entitled to carry on retail business; and whether a person appointed since the passing of the Local Government Act is precluded from doing so.
  MR. ATKINSON: This is a purely abstract question, involving the construction of several orders and statutes. I must, therefore, respectfully object to

  929
  answer it. If, however, the Member will confine his question to a specific case, I will endeavour to reply to it.

  NENAGH URBAN COUNCIL—MR. PATCHELL'S DISQUALIFICATION REPORT.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Patchell, disqualifying the entire urban council of Nenagh because of the payment of rates for voters under £4 valuation by the Trade Labour Association, on the ground that this was a corrupt practice; and will he lay this Report and the shorthand writer's notes taken at the trial upon the Table for the information of the House.
  MR. ATKINSON: It is true that Mr. Patchell held that the payment of rates under the circumstances mentioned was a corrupt practice, and declared void the election of the councillors in whose interest the payment was made. No application was made to have the question of the soundness of the decision in point of law by case stated, or otherwise, reserved for the opinion of the Superior
  Court. There is no precedent for laying the Reports and the shorthand writer's notes on the Table of the House in such a case as this, and no good purpose could be served by it. In addition, it is now under consideration whether the parties reported guilty of these corrupt practices should not be prosecuted, so that in any event it would be undesirable to have any discussion on the matter at present.

  CONTEMPT OF COURT—CASE OF THOMAS EATON.
  MR. M'DERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Thomas Eaton, of Gores-bridge, county Kilkenny, who was committed to prison for contempt of court has now been ten months imprisoned, and that Dr. Waters appeared at the petty sessions to prosecute Eaton as representing the trustees of the estate; and whether he will give instruction that the Crown shall be represented by some solicitor other than Dr. Waters at the forthcoming prosecution of Eliza Eaton.
  MR. ATKINSON: At the request of my right hon. friend, I will reply to this question. Thomas Eaton was committed for contempt of court on a writ of attachment issued by the Court of Chancery, the contempt of court consisting of retaking forcible possession of the holding from which he had been evicted. He was imprisoned from the 15th April, 1899, to 19th May, 1899, and again from the 7th June, 1900, to the 30th ultimo. I see no inconsistency in the prosecution of Eliza Eaton for forcible entry being conducted by the Crown Solicitor, Dr. Waters. It is in the interest of public order.

  DUBLIN G.P.O.—PROMOTIONS.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state the number of vacancies existing in the class of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and clerks attached to the sorting office, General Post Office, Dublin; whether he is aware that two positions on the class of superintendents, namely, that of chief clerk to Controller, and that of sub-accounting officer, vacated by the reduction of two officials for irregularities in connection with the Corcoran defalcations, have recently been filled by the promotion of two officials from the surveyor's branch over the heads of officers of the sorting department; whether these promotions are due to statements made by the present Controller when on his defence in the Corcoran ease, to the effect that he had no officials in his establishment competent to fill the higher positions; and whether, having regard to the fact that the present Controller and one of the officers concerned in the case are importations, it is the intention to again apply the principle of promoting officials from provincial and English offices.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There are in the sorting office, Dublin, at the present time one vacancy for an assistant superintendent and several on the clerks' list. The two vacancies to which the hon. Member refers, and which were filled by the appointment of officers from outside the Dublin sorting office, were two which existed on the

  931
  class of superintendents. One of the officers only was from the surveying establishment, the other being from the circulation department in London. These were so filled because the officers selected were considered to be better fitted to carry on the duties to be performed than any of the officers who would in ordinary course be considered as eligible for the appointments. The principles followed in making the promotions referred to are those which would be followed in similar circumstances at any other office of the Department.

  FERMOY POST OFFICE.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can explain the cause of delay in the appointment of a medical officer to the post office at Fermoy, for which candidates were invited to make formal applications in June, 1900; and when will the appointment of such medical officer be made.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The delay is owing to the fact that no suitable candidate has applied for the appointment. It is hoped that a suitable candidate may soon be obtained.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Is it not the fact that several local medical gentlemen have applied for this position on the terms of the requisition sent to them? How then can it be said that there are no suitable candidates?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information beyond that supplied to me by the Postmaster General.

  BELTURBET POST OFFICE.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the present post office in Belturbet is unfit both as to its position and capacity for the business that has to be transacted in it; and can he state whether the Department have taken any steps to procure a proper site for a new post office; and when they intend to have a new post office erected in a suitable position in the town.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. Member was informed on the 4th ultimo, the post office business at Belturbet is being carried on in temporary premises, and a scheme for buying a site and erecting a new building is under consideration. The Postmaster General is still awaiting a report from the Board of Public Works on the subject.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  MR. TRITTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in response to the memorial recently presented to him, signed by 285 Members of the House of Commons, he will afford special facilities to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill, the Second Reading of which was carried by a majority of
  318.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: May I ask whether my right hon. friend, if he is able to accede to the hon. Member's request, will use his best endeavours to secure that this measure shall be considered in Committee of the Whole House, so that the working classes of the country may understand and appreciate the manner in which it is dealt with.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon. friend and my right hon. friend, I have to say that it is not easy, and would, I think, not be convenient at this period of the session, for the Government to make any declaration as to the course they propose to follow with regard to a private Bill. But I can assure my hon. friend that the Government are fully alive to the very great interest which this measure is exciting in the public mind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. ASQUITH: I wish to ask the Leader of the House what will be the business to-morrow, and what Supply will be taken on Friday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If, as I earnestly hope, we finish to-night the motion "that the Speaker do now leave the Chair" on the Civil Service Estimates, we shall proceed with the consideration of the Budget resolutions in Committee

933
at the morning sitting to-morrow. If we are not able to finish the motion to-night, I think some public inconvenience will ensue, and that discussion will be continued at the morning sitting to-morrow. Thursday will be devoted to the further consideration, either in Committee or on Report, of the Budget resolutions, and, if we finish that work on Thursday night, the Supply I propose to take on Friday will be Class 3 of the Civil Service Estimates—Law Charges, Police, Prisons, and other Votes.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: When will the resolution of the Secretary of State for War be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not this week, certainly.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is it proposed to take the Army Annual Bill to-night?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, after twelve o'clock.

SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES)
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY FOR IRELAND.
MR. ROCHE: I rise to move the resolution which stands in my name. This question has been frequently debated in Senates, Parliament, board rooms, and county council meetings, and on public platforms, with the obvious and necessary conclusion that in this matter Ireland has a real and substantial grievance which ought to be redressed. Very recently, after an animated discussion at the Oxford Union, in which men of the highest culture and intelligence took part, seventeen voted for and only twenty-six against the following resolution—
"That this House would view with satisfaction the establishment in Ireland of a State-aided Roman Catholic University."
The question has also been debated by distinguished Members of the House of
934
Commons, including the Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed, and at least one of the Members for Dublin University, also by the King's Representative in Ireland, and other leading public men—all admitting that the Catholics of Ireland are entitled to the same rights and privileges with regard to higher education as are enjoyed by other citizens of the United Kingdom. I trust that the Government, with its huge majority, will grasp this opportunity of settling this question in a statesmanlike manner. I ask Englishmen to be just and liberal towards Ireland in this matter of education. I beg to move the motion standing in my name.
MR. DILLON: I rise to second this resolution, and in doing so I wish to state that I feel that since this great question was last under the attention of the House a revolutionary and vital change has been effected in the political situation as far as higher education in Ireland is concerned. Since the last debate on this question the Government have taken a certain step and made an announcement which so alters the situation as to make it difficult, if not impossible, to debate the question on its merits to-day. Speaking on the 9th of March, in reply to a deputation, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland declared that the Government had decided to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question of university education. Therefore, any attempt now to argue this question upon its merits would be met by the well-known formula that the subject had been referred to a Royal Commission, and that until that Commission had brought its labours to a close the Government are not in a position to consider the matter. I recognise the situation created by that decision. But whether for good or for evil this; great question has now been referred to the Royal Commission, and until that Commission brings its labours to a conclusion and produces a Report, or a litter of Reports, it will not be possible for us to have any real debate upon the merits of the question in this House, whatever may be done by way of agitation

935
outside. Within my memory many great questions have been referred to the tender mercies of Royal Commissions, with the result that they have not been heard of again within the domain of practical politics for many years. I trust and sincerely hope that the result may not be similar in the present instance, but I feel it my duty at the very beginning of this debate to declare, as I now do declare, that the National party who sit upon these benches have no responsibility whatever for the appointment of this Commission. We did not ask for it, and we were not consulted about it. So far as any information has reached me I understand that the Irish hierarchy did not ask for this Commission, and I feel confident that they would not make themselves responsible for its issue without consulting the Irish party. Therefore, the Irish party are free from all responsibility in regard to this policy of referring the question to a Royal Commission, and the National party will retain their freedom of action in the matter whatever course the Commission may adopt. I feel it all the more necessary to emphasise that fact in view of one of the most remarkable and sinister passages which occurs in the speech of the Lord Lieutenant made on the 9th of March. He says—
"One of my reasons for approving of an inquiry at the present time is this—let us, at all events, come to some decision on this matter. If there is no remedy for the system, if no one can suggest or, rather, if all parties cannot agree upon any proposals which are likely to command the confidence of the public and meet with success—then do not let us continue the controversy, which does not certainly tend to the promotion or improvement of education in Ireland, which, every day it is prolonged, on the contrary, reacts unfavourably in Ireland, and let us acknowledge there is no system under which we can possibly improve higher education in Ireland."
That is a position which the Nationalists are not prepared to take up, and if this Commission succeeds in arriving at a unanimous Report of such a character as would remove, if carried into effect, the grievances of the Irish Catholics, or whether they disagree or produce a litter of Reports, this question will not die, but the Irish party and the people in Ireland who are so deeply interested in it will retain their right to continue the agitation and to demand justice.
936
As I stated before, this Commission was not asked for either by the National party or by the hierarchy of Ireland. But what body did ask for it? It was asked for by the Senate of the Royal University on the 22nd of February last, when they passed a resolution unanimously asking for this Commission. I will read that resolution to the House, because, as hon. Members will immediately perceive, it is of the very utmost importance. On the 22nd of February last the following resolution was unanimously adopted at a meeting of the Senate of the Royal University—
"That in the opinion of the Senate the relation of the university with its own colleges and students, and with other colleges and students, are unsatisfactory, and that it is most desirable that a Royal Commission should be issued to inquire into the working of this university as an examining and teaching body in relation to the educational needs of the country at large, and to report as to the means by which university education in Ireland might receive a greater extension and be more efficiently conducted than it is at present."
Hon. Members will notice that the resolution consists of two distinct parts. The first portion sets forth the grounds on which the present situation is considered to be unsatisfactory. I must confess that I rejoice at the first portion of the resolution, because everyone who has followed the history of this question in Ireland will agree with me that the language of the opening portion of this resolution is accepted as a condemnation of the whole method and system of the Royal University in Ireland. It appears to me to be a great step in advance in the struggle for true university teaching for the masses of the Irish people, that those who have been responsible for the working of the Royal University system, after twenty years experience, have now had to declare that the system is unsatisfactory, and that they have condemned it. From the earliest days of the foundation of the Royal University, which is over twenty years ago, I have been regarded as a bigot in my hostility upon this question, but I never could bring myself to accept the foundation of the Royal University as a step in the right direction, or as any point gained for the cause of higher education in Ireland. On the contrary, I have always regarded the foundation of the Royal University as a

937
retrograde step, inasmuch as it was the introduction and endowment of a system of higher education in Ireland, which, however much it might commend itself to a number of individuals who were enjoying or hoped to enjoy its money prizes, was bound in the long run to degrade education in Ireland and to discourage and extinguish that high ideal love of learning and higher knowledge, for which Ireland has been distinguished in the past as much as any other nation in Europe. I rejoice, therefore, after twenty years experience, to find that the Senate of the Royal University has condemned the whole system and declared—
"That the relations of the University to its own colleges and students and to other colleges and students are unsatisfactory."
The truth is, that in drafting and passing the Bill for the establishment of the Royal University in Ireland no one for a moment cared for the interests of education in that country. The whole object was to give something to the Irish Catholics which would bear at all events the semblance of concession without arousing the furious opposition of those sections, both in this country and in Ireland, who are the victims on this question of ignorant bigotry; and so on the occasion of the foundation of the Royal University the interests of the Irish people on the question of higher education were ruthlessly sacrificed, as they have always been sacrificed, to political considerations, and rather low political considerations, throughout the whole century that has gone by. Why in the world sacrifice those interests in order to disarm the hostility of sections of the population who on this question are the victims and the slaves of formulae based on no real knowledge? I do not think I would be in the least degree exaggerating if I were to affirm that throughout the whole of last century no Irish educational problem was ever considered on its merits, or with a sincere desire for the advancement of true learning in Ireland, until the recent appointments of the two Commissions that sat and inquired into primary and secondary education in Ireland.
If time permitted I should desire to say a few words as to the reasons why those
938
two Commissions were able to deal with the questions of primary and intermediate education. They were enabled to address themselves at once to educational problems, and they were enabled to get their recommendations carried into effect without undue or unreasonable delay. As is well known, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury takes a sympathetic interest in this question of Irish education, and the truth is that in the case of the two Commissions to which I have alluded, happily for the cause of primary and secondary education in Ireland, the Commissioners approached their task with no political complications to face. In the case of primary and secondary education no great dividing principles existed which had aroused the passions, prejudices, and bigotries of large sections of the population, and the result was that they were enabled to approach the question from the point of view of educational experts, and with the happy results I have already described. If there was any hope that this graver question of university and higher education could be dealt with and settled on the same lines and methods which have been so successfully applied to the case of primary and secondary education, no one would be more rejoiced than I would, because then the Irish party would be relieved of the burden of one of the most difficult and one of the gravest cases they have to handle in this House. We would then be within measurable distance of the time when there would be lifted from the shoulders of the people an intolerable and crushing burden in connection with the provision of that higher education which is becoming daily more and more essential to the existence if the people. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that unhappily there is no prospect of being able to settle the question of university education so peaceably and quietly. The Lord Lieutenant himself has recognised that in the speech in which he declared that he could not undertake the responsibility of dealing with this by a vice-regal Commission, and thought it should be a Royal Commission of a most influential and weighty character. The reason is very simple. In the case of the University, the question has become mixed up with

939
politics, and at the very outset of their investigations the Commissioners who are to be appointed will be met by great dividing questions of principle, which will make their task one of the greatest possible difficulty. On that point a suggestion has been made which is rather amusing. It is contained in a resolution passed by the Liberal Unionist Association of Belfast, a very intelligent and superior body. What do they suggest? They say—
"We have observed with satisfaction that on the advice of the Lord Lieutenant the Commission is to be a Royal rather than a vice-regal Commission. We infer from this decision that it is the desire of his Excellency and of His Majesty's Government that the Commission should be composed of men of universally acknowledged eminence in educational and public affairs, and who are known to be superior to sectarian and political partisanship. We earnestly urge the Government, whatever pressure to the contrary may be exerted upon them, to adhere resolutely to this constitution of the Royal Commission, as otherwise its conclusions will fail to command respect in any quarter, and will simply result in intensifying the existing confusion in Irish university conditions."
Where are the Government going for these Commissioners? I shall look with curiosity to see. There are Gentlemen in this House whom I trust sincerely may be on that Commission, such as the Members for the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford. The members of the Commission must be men of great eminence in science and art, without any prejudice on the question at all. That is the view of the Lord Lieutenant, and he is determined to carry it out. If that is the only practical suggestion, I am afraid we have not got much further on the road.
I wish to say a word on a rather delicate subject—whether this question is really at its present stage ripe for a Commission at all, whether this question in the present political situation can best be dealt with by reference to a Commission. If I were consulted on that matter, as I have not been consulted, I should say that I do not think it is. It appears to me that a better course would be, if it were possible, to agree on the principle on which the Commissioners were to operate, and then, after the precedent of the London University, to appoint a Commission for the working out of details. It appears
940
to me that it would be a tar more practical method. I do not myself think that the system of referring the question to a Commission at this stage is the best method of procedure. But I trust that things may turn out better than I am disposed to think they will.
Taking it that a Commission will be appointed in view of the decision of the Cabinet announced by the Lord Lieutenant on the 9th March, two questions force themselves on our attention. First of all, what ought to be the terms of the reference and the scope of the inquiry; and, secondly, what ought to be the composition of the Commission; these are two questions of vital importance, and it seems to me that the debate to-night must turn largely upon them. With regard to the scope of the inquiry, it is manifest from the resolution I have just read that the original demand of the Senate of the Royal University was for the widest possible inquiry, that the Commission should be absolutely unfettered, and that they should have full discretion to make inquiry wherever they thought necessary. That was perfectly plain. The Lord Lieutenant, when waited upon by a deputation from the Senate of the Royal University, declared that a Commission would be granted, and that the terms of the reference would be those indicated in the resolution of the Senate of the Royal University. I would earnestly recommend to hon. Members the reading of the full report of the interview between the Lord Lieutenant and the Senate. No more interesting and important document has been published in the recent history of the Irish University movement. Referring to the fact that the deputation had agreed to the omission of Trinity College, the Lord Lieutenant said—
"I allude to the great and glorious institution which you have in your midst in Dublin, which is endeared to all Irishmen both by its great traditions and memories, and also by the work which it has done, and I hope will continue to do, for the benefit of education."
And then his Lordship went on to say—
"I do not believe myself that any such importation as an inquiry into the condition and circumstances and official work of Trinity College, Dublin, could possibly strengthen your hands. I believe, on the contrary, it would alienate from you a great deal of

941
sympathy—it would alienate the feeling and interest, of which you have heard so much, as to the necessity for such an inquiry."
Now I may say that, differing as I do in general politics from Lord Cadogan, I recognise in him a man who, like the First Lord of the Treasury, has become convinced of the necessity of dealing with this question, and I desire to give him full credit for a sincere and earnest desire to give such a settlement as will be acceptable to the Irish Catholics, always provided that the Orangemen of Ulster will allow him. At first sight, to exclude Trinity College from the scope of an inquiry into the facilities for university education in Ireland seems so absurd as to be incredible. It is precisely on all fours with a proposal to issue a Royal Commission, composed of the best and most influential men in the United Kingdom, to inquire into the general condition of university education in England, with this proviso, that it shall not take into consideration the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. After giving the matter my most careful consideration, absurd as this restriction at first sight seems, I am not at all sure that we Irish Catholics have any strong reason to object to it, and I will explain why. I do not know whether the authorities of Trinity College have thoroughly appreciated what is involved in the exclusion of that institution and of Dublin University from this proposed inquiry; but in the exclusion there is involved the assumption, which lies at the base of the inquiry, that Trinity College is an institution to which Irish Catholics cannot be expected to resort. Otherwise, if that is not the assumption, what could be more grotesque and absurd than to direct a Royal Commission to inquire, with all pomp and ceremony, into the facilities afforded to the people of Ireland for acquiring a university education, and debar it from inquiring into the greatest university in the country! The inference is absolutely irresistible. But I do not need to rely on my own opinions, because the Lord Lieutenant, in his speech in reply to the deputation from the Senate, used these extraordinary and most interesting words—
"But after all, Gentlemen, it would he idle, of course, to ignore the fact that the question of the Catholic grievances, and the alleged—
942
I suppose I must say alleged until they are proved—the alleged injustices under which Catholics suffer with regard to education in this country is the dominant factor in the desire which is at present felt that we should enter into a consideration of perhaps an entire renewal or renovation of the system of university education."
The dominant reason for this attempt to reconstruct the system of education in Ireland is the grievances of the Irish Catholics! But if the Irish Catholics can reasonably be expected to resort to Trinity College, where is the grievance? Therefore, I say beyond all question, that the exclusion of Trinity College from this inquiry is an admission that Irish Catholics cannot reasonably be expected to resort to it.
There is, however, another word to be said. I qualify what I have just said as regards the position of Irish Catholics towards this exclusion by referring to the qualification made by Dr. Healy at the deputation. He agreed that there should be no inquiry into the emoluments, the methods of teaching, or the administration of the funds of Trinity College, but he pointed out that it would be impossible to leave out of mind in this inquiry the existence and wealth of that institution, on which the whole inquiry is, to a large extent, based. With that qualification, I do not care whether this exclusion is persisted in or not. But we are in a very difficult position. As regards this exclusion of Trinity College we are entirely in the dark as to the attitude of the Protestants themselves—that is, the attitude of the Church of Ireland. We have had no indication from the Trinity College authorities as to whether they desire to be excluded, though there is some very remarkable evidence that there is a fluttering in the, dove-cotes, and also evidence of the feeling of the Presbyterians of Ireland. When this announcement was made the Higher Education Committee of the Presbyterian Synod passed a resolution protesting in the most violent terms against the exclusion of Trinity College. Here is an extract from a speech delivered at Magee College on 4th April by the Rev. John A. Hamilton, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland—
"What changes might he proposed by the Commission on university education, recently

943
promised by the Lord Lieutenant, it was impossible to foresee, and whether any of these would he carried out by the Government it was equally impossible to foretell. But one thing in the statement of his Excellency, he (the Moderator) for his part most deeply regretted—namely, that Trinity College and the University of Dublin were excluded from the inquiry of the Commission. It was surely not statesmanship that an institution which was the creature of the State, and which owed its prestige to its State connection, but which had done so little for the progress of the community in the path of education, should be carefully fenced round and regarded as the inalienable property of one-eighth of the population of the kingdom."
That is rather a serious declaration, I can assure those who take an interest in Trinity College. Now what do we see? Trinity College is beginning to get a little alarmed, and not without some ground. We Irish Catholics have been always liberal and reasonable in our attitude towards Trinity College, but when they hear from the Presbyterians of Ulster they get alarmed. In to-day's Times there is a most extraordinary report of a debate at a meeting of the Board of Trinity College, when this wonderful state of things was revealed. The junior fellows presented the following resolution, signed by twenty-two out of their whole number of twenty-five—
"That the junior fellows wish to urge on the Hoard the desirability of intimating publicly and officially to the heads of the Roman Carbolic Church their readiness to provide facilities for the catechetical and religions instruction of Roman Catholic students by lectures, examinations, and the supervision of their religious observance by clergymen of their own Church, and of inviting their co-operation in drawing up a scheme for securing this."
And then they go on to say—
"That the junior fellows further urge on the Board the desirability of commencing negotiations with the heads of the Presbyterian Church, with a view to establishing a Presbyterian divinity school, and arranging for Presbyterian religious services in Trinity College."
The next thing we shall have will be an invitation to the Jesuits to set up their camp inside Trinity College. It is a very certain sign that these gentlemen are beginning to see, to use the words of the Moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly, that it is intolerable that this great institution, which for 300 years has absorbed the higher education of Ireland, "should be fenced round and
944
regarded as the inalienable property of one-eighth of the nation"—that one-eighth, moreover, which can very well afford to pay for its university education.
What has been the position of Irish Catholics in this regard for long years? When we agitate this question we speak for three-fourths of the population who have been left out in the cold in the matter of the higher education, while the whole endowments of the past have been plundered from us by confiscation. We have said to Trinity College over and and over again—"Unjust and unreasonable as it may be, we Irish Catholics are content to leave you this great property, fenced round and maintained as the exclusive property of an eighth of the population, on one condition—namely, that we are allowed to secure for the three-fourths of the population equal rights, and an institution to which our people can resort, as well endowed and as well equipped as Trinity College, Dublin." But the time has come to address a warning to the governing body and representatives of Trinity College that this offer on the part of the Irish Catholics cannot stand open much longer. It will be an evil day for Trinity College if, as on the land question, the Catholics come to an agreement with the Presbyterians. In view of the very persistent opposition to our moderate claims I think that I may ask, on behalf of the Irish party and the Irish Catholics, from the governing body of Trinity College something more than a cold neutrality on this question. Gratitude for past favours and for favours to come ought to secure their warmest support. Assuming that Trinity College and Dublin University are excluded, two or three questions arise which I would like in all seriousness to ask the First Lord of the Treasury. Is Trinity College to be represented on the Committee? and are the professors of Trinity College to be invited to give evidence before the Committee, while their own institution is excluded from all inquiry? I say that Trinity College (and this is to me a vital question) ought not to be allowed once more to make the monstrous plea, which has been frequently put forward before, that even if we Irish Catholics consent to

945
allow it to go on its own path with its gigantic endowments, its vast revenues, and all its long traditions, no unfair competition shall be set up against it—in other words, that no system of education more available because cheaper to the Irish people, shall be set up in Ireland from fear that it would interfere with its preserves.
Before I pass from Trinity College, Dublin, I must refer to the high eulogium passed upon that great institution by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He said it was deep-seated in the confidence and love of the people of Ireland. I traverse that statement. I say that in Trinity College there is not a spark of Irish spirit. I do not believe it is up to the level, in its general education, of any university of modern Europe, and that is why it is so much afraid of competition. I go further, and say, so far as the true spirit of our people, the true spirit of the old race in Ireland is concerned. Trinity College might as well be located in Birmingham or Manchester as in Dublin. It is not an Irish institution. It is a foreign institution planted in our midst three hundred years ago for the purpose of degrading and putting down our people and catering for the wants of the English garrison in Ireland. For three hundred years it has been faithful to the teaching and spirit of its founders, and treats the Irish people outside its gates as pariahs. Was there ever paraded in any country of the world a more scandalous exhibition of bigotry and anti-national feeling than that paraded by Trinity College in its present bigotry and malignant hatred against the native language? That college, with its ancient fame, has buried in its library most valuable MSS. dating from the time when Ireland shone as the greatest home of learning in Europe. Yet down to yesterday they have turned the cold shoulder to the ancient literature and language of the country in a manner which has been a monstrous scandal, when Trinity College ought to be the centre of all that is great in the intellectual life of the country. That is all I have to say as to Trinity College—it is not an Irish institution. But we are willing to leave Trinity College in undisputed possession of all its great emoluments and equipments, because we feel it
946
is necessary to secure some opening for the unfortunate people for a chance of Irish education, and I would not allow for a moment any bitterness of feeling, such as I now display, or any memory of our wrongs to remain in the way of its receiving those emoluments. What I say is that, bigoted and stereotyped as it is, so far as education is concerned, I would gladly welcome Trinity College if it will only consent to come under the investigations of the Commission, but I maintain that if it is to be excluded from the investigations of this Committee it should be excluded in more ways than one. It should be excluded from seeking to affect the decision of the Commission if it will not submit itself to the Commission. I have said that, in my judgment, and I repeat it, it will be very easy indeed to set up a better system of education in Ireland. It has been the custom, and a very absurd custom, to indulge in extravagant eulogiums with regard to the college. I am ready to admit that it is a great institution, and that it has produced some great men, but I submit it is not up to the level of modern requirements in the matter of university education. We want in Ireland a system of university education up to the level of modern ideas and requirements, and suitable to the needs of the country, and that is a matter not to be left out of consideration in dealing with this question. We want an educational system like that of Germany or Scotland, or that which has lately been started in Wales—a system which will bring home the benefits of university education and training to the doors of the poorest labourer of Ireland. We want no aristocratic university, which caters for a small section of the population, and that the section which is best able to cater for itself. If the university education question was simply concerned with the needs of the wealthier Catholic classes I would never raise my voice in favour of it, nor would any man on these benches; but because we speak for the poor we ask, not for a university for aristocrats and the sons of wealthy men, but for a university where the children of the artisans and labourers of Ireland will sit side by side with the sons of the most wealthy, without any distinction, save that which God

947
made when he created one with more brains than another.
It is charged against us, and is put as a reason why we have not had a university given to us, that we have asked for one governed by Roman Catholic bishops and priests. That is a false charge; we have never asked for such a university. We have asked for a university which shall be in its inception as Catholic as Trinity College is Protestant, and nothing more, and if we get such a university, it will remain Catholic as long as the people remain Celtic and Catholic. That is what will be the result if you make its constitution free. If such a university is set up I promise we will waive our animosity to Trinity College. Such a university would be Irish in sentiment and spirit, and would, I trust and believe and know, open its arms wide and endow its chairs for our ancient literature and language, which is not one of the characteristics of Trinity College; so that men who come to the university would come to the highest centre of learning in Ireland, and not to a foreign institution. Let me just refer to the remarkable words uttered by Father Delaney—one of the most enlightened men who has dealt with this question. What did he say? He said—
"He had one other observation to make, and it was this: their object was not merely to obtain equality—that was the political aspect of the education question in Ireland—equality between the different classes and religions in Ireland. Their object was to obtain the highest and best modern education, and anyone who had studied the developments of science and its application in recent times could say that the development of a country depended almost entirely, or certainly to a very large extent, on the degree to which people were educated in the best and most modern systems. He hoped, therefore, that they would have a Royal Commission, on which science would be adequately represented, and that, if possible, they should have on it some men representative, not merely of the science of fifty years ago, but of the science of to-day, who would come to Ireland and realise bow hopelessly and deplorably backward we were in what was essential if we were to hold our place with the other countries of the world."
That utterance is not uninteresting, coming as it does from a Jesuit priest—a sect which is held up by ignorant people as being against the enlightenment of Ireland. Yet here was this gentleman inviting the most enlightened people in
948
the world to come and say how higher education for Ireland is to be obtained. I agree most heartily with the desire expressed by Dr. Delaney; by all means let us have some of our greatest scientific men to inquire into this matter. Many things will be proved when they come to look into this question, and I can anticipate nothing but good resulting from the highest intellect you have coming to Ireland and making this investigation; but I think there ought also to be on the Commission some adequate representation of those acquainted with Catholic claims, so that their views should be adequately expressed and put before the Commissioners, so that the Commission could say whether their grievances, or alleged grievances, demand a remedy. The secretary ought to be a man intimately connected with the condition of affairs in Ireland, and one who could be trusted to assist the Commissioners, by his knowledge, to arrive at a just decision.
I have only one more word to say, which I address to those on both sides of the House who are irreconcilably opposed to any such university. I believe those gentlemen are honest in their convictions, and I will only say that those convictions are based upon an ignorance of the situation. When this question was debated before, I found a number of hon. Gentlemen protesting on principle that no endowment should be given to sectarian institutions; yet some of those hon. Gentlemen voted for sectarian schools in this country. Is it not extraordinary? What have they done? I have read the statement of Father Delaney, who says what they have done. Are you aware that under the Royal University system, at the very first meeting of the Senate they devised a scheme openly for the purpose of endowing a Jesuit college on St. Stephen's Green, and that of their revenue £4,000 is paid over to the governing body of the college? When you endow a Jesuit college with public money, the teaching of which you cannot control in any way whatever, which from their point of view is absolutely indefensible, the only defence of hon. Gentlemen is, "We will allow this money to be allocated to this Jesuit college so long as the matter is done through a back door"; but if we are asked to endow a sectarian institution,

949
the charter of which could be laid on the Table of this House, they say, "No." What humbug! What monstrous hypocrisy! Was there ever a country like this? You endow a Mohammedan college at Khartoum; you endow sectarian colleges in this country—we have the very wastrels of the street put into the industrial schools of this country—you endow colleges and universities in the North, where the Presbyterian is the religion; you endow every form of education in Ireland on strictly sectarian principles; you endow a Jesuit college on St. Stephen's Green, through a back-door process, but you will not endow in Ireland a great national university which will be free to all. It is only in England that such an attitude could be taken up. I hope the day is not far distant when we may see the scales fall off the eyes of this House, and that for the unhappy people who have been kept out in the dark for centuries the golden gates of learning may be unrolled, and Ireland may take her stand, where once she stood, among the most forward of the learned nations of the earth.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the provision for universities is totally inadequate, and none can be regarded as equitable which does not secure for the Roman Catholics of Ireland, equally with other members of the community, facilities for university education without violence to their religious feeling'; instead thereof."—(Mr. Roche.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The hon. Member for East Mayo addressed a considerable portion of his speech to the discussion of the Commission which is to inquire into what takes place in Ireland in this matter, and objecting very strongly to Trinity College being withdrawn from the purview of that inquiry. I myself should be very glad to see Trinity College come under examination, for I believe if it did it would come out triumphant. The hon. Member also supported his argument by quoting the endowment of the Jesuit college in Dublin. That was effected entirely with-
950
out the knowledge of Parliament, and I earnestly hope, when the investigation takes place into the whole system of university education in Ireland, that endowment will be withdrawn. I do not intend to devote my time to criticising the future action of the Commission. I will address my remarks to the proposal of the hon. Member opposite embodied in this motion. This motion proposes, "That in the opinion of this House, the provision for universities is totally inadequate, and none can be regarded as equitable which does not secure for the Roman Catholics of Ireland equally with other members of the community facilities for university education without violence to their religious feeling." I thought, when the hon. Member commenced his speech, he would point out how it comes about that the Roman Catholics find themselves handicapped for university Education in Ireland.
MR. DILLON: I told you twice over.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The hon. Member certainly said they could not learn Irish at Trinity College. I do not believe the hon. Member can speak Irish, and he is not a member of the university.
MR. DILLON: My father was.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: And no doubt was an ornament to the college from which he came. The hon. Member for Waterford was also in Trinity College, and everybody will agree that he is a very excellent specimen. I do not believe anybody will say that the Protestant atmosphere of the college, to which Roman Catholics so much object, had any deleterious effect on either his faith or morals. We object to a Roman Catholic college in Ireland, because it would be dominated by the Roman Catholic Church. That is the view I take and which I shall try to prove, and in order to do so, it is necessary to take the evidence of Roman Catholics themselves upon the matter. What did the Bishop of Down say?
MR. DILLON: What date?
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: 1868. The views on faith and morality held by the Catholics in 1808 are the same as they

951
hold in 1901, and this is what the Bishop said—
"The managers should use no books in the school but such as would be approved by the heads of their religious denomination. Q. How far will extend the right of judging as to the secular portion of the instruction?—A. The Church has a general right to examine any book, and to see whether or not there is anything in the book contrary to sound faith and morals—any book whatever. Incidentally there may come into any book a proposition which may be very objectionable. There is no book which I conceive the proper authority of the Church would be excluded from examining."
I ask the House to mark how he went on, as this shows the amount of liberty which the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland allows to its members—
"But a parent may, if he likes, independently of the Church, say, 'I will not be tied down by the Church. I will not be priest-ridden.' He may do that, but if he does it is by the violation of his principles, or by following an erroneous conscience as a Catholic."
So that a Roman Catholic in Ireland has no choice whatever. Either he must follow the education given to him and superintended by the priests of his Church, or, if he tries to obtain education where that authority is not exerted, he does so at the peril of his position as a Catholic. Therefore, if the House wishes to know why Roman Catholics in Ireland have not of late years gone in largo numbers to Trinity College, the reason is to be found in that statement of the Bishop of Down. You cannot expect a Roman Catholic who firmly believes in his religion, in the face of that utterance, to send his son to Trinity College, or any other college where the priests are not supreme. Of course, I shall come into that category described by the hon. Member for East Mayo as "intolerant bigots." [Nationalist cheers.] I knew that would evoke a cheer; but my idea of bigotry and that of hon. Gentlemen opposite are entirely different. I do not say that a man who holds very strong views on the religion he professes is a bigot, but I do say that that man is a bigot who tries to force his opinions down the throats of those who object to them. Nobody will be able to show, in the course of this debate, that a Roman Catholic who goes to Trinity College
952
has to confront any attempt to undermine his faith. I appeal to the hon. Member for Waterford, who has been to Trinity College, to tell me whether, during the time he was a member of the college, any effort was made to injure or undermine his faith, or whether, during his residence, anything was done that he saw or heard of which would be offensive to the most tender conscience of a Roman Catholic.
Why do Roman Catholics not go to Trinity College? For one reason and one only—that they are not allowed. In the debate two years ago the Leader of the House said, "What a terrible thing-it would be if the Catholics did come in great numbers," and he asked how we should like that.
Why, if they came in shoals, we should receive them with open arms. We should be only too glad to see our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen coming to receive their education at the same college as that at which we received ours. We believe that by that means a bridge would be built over the gulf which religious intolerance and bigotry have placed between different portions of the population. For my own part, I repudiate bigotry or intolerance, but I will oppose to the bitter end any attempt to create in Ireland a university which inevitably must be directly guided and governed by the Roman Catholic priesthood. I would equally oppose the creation of a university absolutely governed by the Protestant Church. There are priests in every denomination—and I equally dislike them all. In what way is a Roman Catholic who enters Trinity College at the same time as a Protestant handicapped or interfered with in his progress towards the prizes which the open competition of the university holds up for its scholars? Is it not perfectly true that they are treated absolutely fairly, irrespective of the faith they profess, and that all the prizes and fellowships of the college are open to the competition of both? It cannot be denied that that is so. The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has in the past made great claims on the Legislature of this country. It began, and rightly, by pleading for toleration. It got it. It then pleaded for equality, and, although the Irish Church had to

953
be disestablished, it got that equality. It now asks for absolute supremacy over the education of the majority of the Irish people. A few years ago, when this question was under discussion, I had a letter from a Roman Catholic gentleman in Ireland hoping I would stick to my guns in the matter, and he said that on the governing body of a Roman Catholic university, with a predominance of laymen, if there were one bishop, that bishop would have more weight than all the rest put together. The position of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland is absolute. The House of Commons is asked to create and endow a Roman Catholic university. What do hon. Gentlemen opposite offer in return? Do they promise loyalty? Do they propose to bury the hatchet which they and their friends and the priests have been sharpening all these years? Do they intend to try, as far as they can, to cause the Irish people to forget those dark days, which, thank God! have long passed away? No; they promise nothing, and expect to get everything. The House of Commons, which is essentially a businesslike assembly—except sometimes—will naturally ask itself, if we do grant a Roman Catholic university, guided, influenced, and practically dominated by the priestly authority, What kind of citizens will it turn out? The House has not far to go to see what kind of citizens Roman Catholic education in Ireland turns out. There are about eighty specimens below the gangway opposite. I do not use the word "specimens" in any offensive sense. I do not say "bad specimens," as that would be very uncivil to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not say "good specimens," because that might be insulting to the Irish people. I take it that hon. Gentlemen opposite are merely ordinary specimens of the output of Roman Catholic education in Ireland. Can you hold up the Nationalist party in this House as an example of what good citizens of this Empire should be? They themselves openly avow that they hate the British Empire, and that whoever strikes great Britain is their friend. [Nationalist cheers.] They are perfectly frank. But is it likely, if the output of Roman Catholic education increases,
954
it will be for either the well-being treat Britain or the good of Ireland? I do not think it will.
One cannot deny that the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland have gone outside the natural boundary of the religious domain, and have entered the field of politics. They have pointed out that they cannot sever their views of religion from politics, because politics affect morals. There is one opinion which I will ask the permission of the House to quote. A very great authority. Mr. Gladstone, in speaking of the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, pointed out that there the priests were absolute over the people, the bishops were absolute over both, and the Pope was absolute over all three. This Roman Catholic university, their own priests said, must be planted by themselves or Roman Catholics will not be allowed to go to it; they must have their learning passed through ecclesiastical filters before it reaches their mind; and is that, in the twentieth century, a university which ought to, or can, command the respect of the world at large, or even of Ireland?
Two years ago the First Lord of the Treasury sympathised with the idea of establishing a Roman Catholic university in Ireland. I venture to point out to my right hon. friend and the House that the position since then has materially changed. My right hon. friend may have had in his mind the hope, which is not well founded, that by concession to the Roman Catholic clergy and hierarchy he might secure their loyal support to the Government of the country. What has happened during the last two years? This country has been engaged in a great and bitter war, and what course did the Roman Catholic hierarchy pursue, in sympathy with hon. Gentlemen opposite? Why, all over Ireland the Roman Catholic clergy have held up our enemies to admiration and condemned Great Britain. These are the men whom you propose to place at the head of Irish university education. Last, but not least, they really showed their true colours when this country suffered under the bereavement of the death of our beloved Queen. Who, among all her subjects, alone showed no sorrow, sent no testimony of their sympathy?

955
The Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland. That, in itself, was sufficient, I should say, to open the eyes of my right hon. friend to the men into whose hands he proposes to commit supreme authority for the education of Ireland. Do you think that these men will turn out loyal citizens—these men who side with our enemies, who refused to express sorrow at the death of our Queen? Are they the men into whose hands you think it would be a good thing to confide the educational destinies of Ireland? I say. "No," and when I say, "No" I think I am speaking for the majority of the House of Commons and for the great majority of the Protestants of the Empire. I have spoken somewhat warmly, for I feel very warmly upon this subject, but I think that it would be a supreme and almost a criminal mistake for this or any other Government to ever try to persuade the House of Commons to hand over the education of Ireland to these men, to this Church, to this hierarchy, and thus forge a chain which would be bound for ever round the intellect of Ireland, by giving it over to these clerical fomenters of discord and teachers of treason.
MR. MORRIS: I should like, with the indulgence of the House, which I hope will be extended to me on this, the first occasion of my addressing it, not to let this opportunity pass by without giving expression to the views which I hold upon the interesting question which has come before us tonight, and which I hope the House will consider in a fair-minded, tolerant, and sympathetic manner. I am quite certain that time will show that this is a question fraught with the greatest importance, not only for the intellectual development but for the whole social and public and political life of the country to which I belong, and whose interests I have so much at heart, and a portion of which, and that the capital of the most Catholic province in Ireland, I have the honour of representing in this House. And I hope that I am not presumptuous in thinking that there are one or two reasons why my views may not be without value to this House because, owing, to the chances of my life, I have, I think, had special or certainly varied opportunities
956
of forming the views which I hold. Perhaps the House will in this matter excuse my being a little personal in my remarks, but I desire to say that I was educated in England in my school days at a Catholic school, which was presided over and influenced by one of the greatest Englishmen of his day, and one who added to his other great claims of distinction that of having made the most valuable contribution and given the most brilliant advocacy to the very question which we are now discussing, and who was also the founder and first rector of the Catholic University started in Dublin in the middle of the last century. I refer to Cardinal Newman. I lived, therefore, at that school in a Catholic atmosphere. My fellow students were Catholics, and the masters were Catholics, but there was no undue clericalism. They were all laymen, and I had thus the opportunity of being educated under the best and healthiest Catholic auspices. When my school days were over and I returned to my own country, the only option I had, if I wished to go to a university, in the strict sense of the word, was to go to Trinity College. I went there and spent four years of my life at that college, and, as I hope to be able to show from my own experience, I spent four years in one of the most Protestant institutions which I believe it is possible to conceive. I also happen to live in the neighbourhood of one of the Queen's Colleges, and am familiar with its history and working. I only mention these facts in order to show that I have come into contact with the question from various points of view, and am acquainted with the many conflicting interests involved in this question, which is undoubtedly a vexed and difficult one. But there is another reason why I think my opinions should receive the attention of Members, on the Ministerial side more especially. I am the sole Unionist in the House of Commons out of three provinces of Ireland, and I am the only Catholic Unionist in the House from Ireland. Practically speaking, Irish Catholic Unionists are unrepresented in the House of Commons, because, though a large, they are a scattered body, and at no place do they exist in sufficient

957
numbers to return a representative to Parliament; nevertheless they are a large body, and particularly in connection with this question, as they happen to belong to a class who are one and all interested directly in its solution. And I think they have some claim upon the Government, and upon Members on this side of the House, because as in the past they remained loyal, in spite of terrible laws and the loss of their position and property, to the faith of their country, so in recent years they have, in the face of an immense amount of undeserved unpopularity and loss of local influence, remained loyal to the Throne and the Constitution. On their behalf, then, I appeal more especially to this side of the House for a sympathetic consideration of this question. But beyond mentioning the fact that there is such a class in Ireland, and that they are so unrepresented in this House, and yet that they are so deeply interested in the settlement of this question. I do not wish to lay stress on political distinctions, because know and cordially recognise that the Catholics of Ireland, whether Unionists or Home Rulers, are solidly united in one body in demanding justice in this matter.
If the House will allow me, I will briefly review the university opportunities that at present exist in Ireland, and are available for the possible Catholic student. There is, first of all, of course, Trinity College, Dublin. It is pre-eminently first. And before I say a word about Trinity College, I wish for myself to offer a tribute of warm affection and regard for my old university. I hope I am not an entirely unworthy son of an university where I spent much pleasant time, and the memories of which I recall with sincere gratitude; and I would go further and say that there is no Irishman, no matter what his political opinions or religious views may be, no matter whether he happens to have been to Trinity College or not, who ought ever to mention the name of Dublin University, the mother of so many distinguished and patriotic Irishmen, without the greatest respect and pride. It was the university of Berkeley, Swift, Congreve, Goldsmith, Burke, Flood, Grattan, Plunket, Curran, Moore, and Lever; and I may remind the hon. Member for
958
East Mayo that it was also the college of Wolfe Tone, Emmet, Davis, and Butt. Such are my personal feelings with regard to what is a most distinguished institution, which has in the past done good work in Ireland from its own point of view, and which is now doing good work from its own point of view, and which I hope will continue to do good work from its own point of view, and which is my own Alma Mater. But I would ask whether I am guilty of a want of filial respect if I say that my collegiate mother is a Protestant, for that is all I desire to say with reference to Trinity College, and what also I do not wish to see changed, but I do say that Trinity College is a Protestant institution from top to toe, from the provost at the head of it to the porters at the gate. It is Protestant in its birth, history, traditions, and customs; in its system of education; and it is Protestant this very minute in its composition and administration. It is idle to deny that it is Protestant in its atmosphere and spirit, when it is Protestant in substance and reality, and it is absurd and unfair to ask any Catholic in Ireland to be satisfied with it as a means for higher education. How could it be otherwise with Trinity College? We know what it has been for three centuries. Trinity College has been openly and avowedly a disseminating fountain of Protestant thought, culture, and feeling in Ireland. It has been the actual centre and rallying point of the Protestant ascendency, which ruled Ireland up to a few years ago. It was in past years openly and avowedly connected with proselytism. It was founded and endowed for such purposes, and it should be remembered that Trinity College is a State founded and State endowed institution, and that the State endowment includes a divinity school. For two centuries Roman, Catholics were not even admitted to the college, and only in recent times have the positions of emolument been opened to them. It may be said that all that is past, that the tests and disabilities which prevented Catholics from going to Trinity College no longer exist. But, nevertheless, I maintain that the college cannot be considered acceptable or congenial to the Catholics of Ireland. I would ask hon. Members to picture to themselves the

959
converse of such a university as I am describing, and if they do so, I think they will have to admit that although Catholics are no longer excluded by law from Trinity College, it is a Protestant institution, and dangerous, if not positively injurious, to the faith of Catholics. I ask you to look at Trinity College as it exists to-day. This is the college which we are told meets the requirements of the Catholic people of Ireland, who are the great mass of the nation. More than 90 per cent. of the students attending Trinity College are non-Catholics; the provost, all the fellows, and all the professors are Protestants. The provost and many of the professors are in addition Protestant clergymen. I ask hon. Members whether such an institution, if equally Catholic, would be acceptable to Protestants to send their sons to. There is in connection with Trinity College an official chapel. When the bell rings the Protestant students congregate dressed in cap and gown, but what becomes of the Catholic student on that occasion? If he attends at all, under such circumstances, to the duties and observances of his own religion, he has to sneak out of the college into the streets of Dublin to follow his devotions. The chapel in Trinity College is a most conspicuous feature of the social life of the college. Its ceremonial goes on daily before one's eyes and in one's hearing. I speak from experience and observation, and I again ask hon. Members to picture the converse. Then the divinity school of Trinity College is one of the largest, most important, and most influential schools in the university. It is the actual training school of the Church of Ireland, and in connection with it there is, of course, the retinue of professors and lecturers in theology—men, too, who lecture on controversial points as between Catholics and Protestants, and who afterwards lecture Catholic students in subjects of philosophy and morals and modern history. It is one of the richest schools in connection with the college. There are a number of prizes, exhibitions, and sizarships open only to Protestants, because they can only be competed for by students coming from the Protestant preparatory schools in Ireland, and in connection with the chapel and the divinity school there are several social
960
and debating societies, such as the college theological society, the church musical society, choir societies, and university missions. But, leaving aside the actual College chapel and the divinity school, I say that the influences which permeate the whole college and constitute its spirit and atmosphere, with respect to even the smallest detail, are as Protestant as it is possible for them to be. The provost is a distinguished Protestant theologian, actually famous for his writings against Catholics. Books are included in the college courses which are essentially Protestant in their nature; the Catholic student is lectured and examined in philosophy and history by a professor, who that morning may have been conducting services in the chapel, preaching controversial sermons, or, very properly, from his point of view, lecturing in the divinity school on subjects of theological differences between Catholics and Protestants. It is a thoroughly sectarian college. Even students who are not divinity students, but who are members of the Church of Ireland, have to attend services in the chapel, and attend catechetical lectures and examinations. The Dublin university press is, too, the principal Protestant publishing firm in Ireland.
I could go more into detail, but I think I have said enough to show the House, in dealing with the only university in the strict sense of the word that exists in Ireland, that it is carried on actively in connection with, and is steeped in the spirit of a particular form of belief, that it is a most sectarian college, and that it is idle and ridiculous to deny that its atmosphere is Protestant—an atmosphere which always seemed to me like a sort of cold, smokeless incense—when the actual composition and administration of the college are so intensely Protestant. Trinity College, therefore, can never be a college for the Catholics of Ireland. If it does not actually injure or destroy the faith of a Catholic, it certainly subjects it to the greatest danger, and it certainly humiliates all the religious sentiments and susceptibilities of an Irish Catholic. I think it is monstrous to ask an Irish Catholic, who is a member of the religion to which the great mass of the nation belong, when he wants to finish his

961
education to, as it were, leave his country behind him, leave his religion behind him, and all the associations connected with his faith and home and earlier education, and go into such an institution, where he practically finds himself living alone like a pariah; and I ask again, would Protestants send their sons to a college as Catholic, or half as Catholic, as Trinity College is Protestant? But the Catholics of Ireland have no desire to touch Trinity College. We recognise that it meets the requirements of a large section of the Irish people. We know that it was founded for the purpose of teaching the Irish people through the medium of Protestantism, and we are perfectly willing that it should continue to do the good work it has done in the past, but I say it is unfair to ask Catholics to be content with it. Trinity College, however great, however much I admire it in many respects, is part and parcel of the old Protestant ascendency, and when the Catholics of Ireland take into account its history and traditions it is absolutely uncongenial to them and thoroughly out of touch with all their views and feelings. It is an exotic and unnational institution. One of the Fellows of the college himself said that it was not a national institution, and had never pretended to be such. It has, I believe, been called by the other universities "the silent sister." and could there be a stronger piece of evidence of how uncharacteristic it is of the country it is located in? Now, I have endeavoured to survey Trinity College as it exists as a university available for at least open to the Catholic students of Ireland, and I wish now to ask what other opportunities they have in the matter of higher education. To my mind there is no other university. It is said that there is the Royal University; but the Royal University is not a university at all, it is not even a college. It neither educates nor teaches the Irish people. It has simply one of the most perfunctory attributes of a university—that of examining. It is a university without residence, without pupils, without teachers, without class-rooms, without reading-together, without debates. I have seen it mentioned as a criticism of all university teaching in these days, even in the
962
oldest colleges in this country, that it is too much a process of cramming. If that can be said of Oxford and Cambridge, with all their intellectual and social life and spirit of culture, how much more is this the fact in the case of a dry examining board, a question and answer machine, a university of results? In my opinion the Royal University cannot in any high and formative sense educate or advance the mind of the people of Ireland. There is nothing which arises out of old traditions, no genius loci, none of the advantages of personal stimulus and oral instruction; no interchange of ideas and comradeship between young men coming from different parts of the country, creating enlargement of mind and tolerance; no social or even festive life or athletics. In a word, none of the unstudied education or unwritten lessons which are the most valuable part of university training. I have seen it said that the Houses of Parliament and the atmosphere around them are a sort of university of politics. If an hon. Member of this House never came here but occasionally to vote, if he missed all the valuable oral instruction that can be gained here, say in the debates—the social life of the place—what the hon. Member for Kerry calls "the ins and outs of the smoking room"—all that can be learnt from the manners and customs of the place—could it be said that such a Member was deriving all the advantages which can be gained as a student in this university of politics? The same may be said of the Royal University of Ireland, which is thoroughly unsuited to the social and intellectual needs of the Irish people, is a miserable makeshift, a sham university, and has been condemned by its own governing body.
There is only one other form of higher education in Ireland to which I would refer, and that is the Queen's colleges. The Queen's colleges were founded by Sir Robert Peel, when he tried to force a purely secular education on the people of Ireland; but they are absolute failures in regard to meeting the requirements of the Catholic people of Ireland. The only one which has taken root is now practically a Presbyterian college. Any attempt to force a purely secular education

963
on Ireland will never be acceptable to the Irish people. Secularism is absolutely repulsive in the eyes of the Irish people, including the Protestants, for they are just as keenly opposed to un-denominational education as the Catholics. The Irish people will never accept any education from which religion is banished. But it has been said that to found a Catholic university would be retrogressive, that it would be to go back on the principle of not endowing any institution in which religion is taught. The Irish people have never accepted that principle, although it may have been accepted sometimes in this country. The reliligious conscience of Ireland is absolutely opposed to such a principle. The other day I read a description of that principle by a great educationalist, a distinguished Englishman. I will quote it for the benefit of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House who are such advocates for the principle. He called it "that spavined, vicious-eyed Liberal hobby expressly bred to do duty against the Irish Catholics." Moreover, all existing education in Ireland—whether primary, intermediate, or university—is sectarian. Trinity College, for instance, is. And I would point out that to attempt to secularise Trinity College will be of no earthly use to meet the demands of Irish Catholics. I say that if any such thing is attempted it would ruin Trinity College as an institution for Protestants, and, far from making it a half-way house, would remove it thousands of miles further away from Irish Catholics, for they would much prefer a Protestant atmosphere to an agnostic or atheistic atmosphere in a university.
I have dealt with the only opportunities that exist for university education in Ireland. I have spoken of Trinity College and its Protestant character, of the Royal University, and of the Queen's colleges, and have shown how unsatisfactory for different reasons these all are, and how there is no possibility of their meeting the daily growing needs of the Catholic people of Ireland, who desire a university education. I now wish to answer some of the objections which have been made to establishing a Catholic university in Ireland. One objection I have heard raised is, "It is all very fine to make this demand, but
964
why do not you found a university yourselves? Why do you always come, like beggars, to us?" The reply is that we are too poor, and that it is your fault that we are so poor. The history of Catholic Ireland is the history of the poor. And we have no wealthy men who could dream of founding a fully equipped university. I would ask the House to consider how much the poor Catholics of Ireland have done, and are doing, for the cause of education and religion. They support their own clergy; they have had to build in recent years churches to replace those confiscated from them in penal times; and they have subscribed liberally to innumerable educational institutions. It is simply marvellous to consider how much has been done by the generous and faithful poor of Ireland for religion and education. But not only do they support their own Church and educational institutions; the poor Catholics of Ireland in the past, and indirectly at this moment, support the Protestant Church there, because we all know that their money went to endow the Church of the wealthy Protestant minority, and that, although the Tithe Commutation Act was passed, the burden falls still upon them indirectly through the rent. Not alone are they poor, but it is your fault that they are poor. The other day there was a debate in the House when some hon. Member referred to Irish history. The First Lord of the Treasury in reply afterwards—and there is no gentleman whom, from an Irish point of view, I more admire, or who has shown as a British statesman a more sincere desire to deal with the great problems he became familiar with in Ireland—deprecated in discussing Irish questions references to Irish history. In discussing English questions in this House there is no necessity to refer to history. The questions which come before the House in reference to England are questions that have arisen owing to modern developments and the conditions of modern society; but, unfortunately, the questions we have to bring before the House from Ireland are not modern questions. They are old questions. I wish that they were modern questions dealing with new social and industrial complexities. The questions which we have to ask the House to consider

965
refer to the redress of ancient wrongs in Ireland and the necessity for doing justice to Ireland; unfortunately most of the demands from Ireland are for arrears of justice, and it is absolutely necessary, when bringing them before the House, to look into Irish history. No Irishman looks into Irish history except with a shudder, but he has to do so in order to trace the springs of the wrongs and anomalies which exist in his country in so many cases. And there you will find that the poverty of the Irish people is due to the infamous penal laws which were directed against not only the religion but the property and position and trade of the Irish people. A century ago it was a felony for a Catholic to learn. They were offered either Protestantism or Catholicism and ignorance. They chose the latter, but of course suffered. So the Catholic population lived on in Ireland without colleges, or schools, or religion, not allowed to hold property of any kind, and yet you are now astonished that the Irish people are poor. But now these laws are at an end you have coming before this House the demands and necessities of the immense daily growing Catholic population of Ireland who have just emerged from the suppression of the past, after centuries of persecution, and who ask you to deal justly and fairly with this matter. I consider, for my part, that the penal laws of Ireland may be said still to exist to a certain extent so long as you prevent the Irish Catholics from having university education, and so penalise them from entering the higher walks of professional life. Complaints are made of so many Protestants being appointed in Ireland to various offices, and I often think that this is due to the fact that they are the most highly qualified, because the Catholics have not had the educational advantages which they have had. I agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the proposed university should be instituted upon the lines of those of Scotland, where the poorest can go. The fact is that the revolution has taken place in Ireland. Democracy rules in Ireland as elsewhere, and a new generation has arisen to whom you have given political and local power, but to whom you still deny the power of knowledge. I hope the House
966
will now deal with this question once and for all. It is high time that it was settled. For generations the House has seen the Catholics of Ireland come here and by every means in their power endeavour to persuade the House to deal fairly in this matter, and I trust that the present Government, which I look upon as friendly to Ireland, will not allow this occasion to go by without settling a question which is so important to the whole intellectual and social development of the country from which I come.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid this was essentially an educational, and only accidentally a religious, question. He had seen a circular from the Liberation Society in which it was said that there was no reason why Irish Catholics should not frequent Dublin University, inasmuch as English Catholics went to Oxford and Cambridge. As an English Catholic who had been to Oxford he could say that there was no arguing from one to the other. English Catholics had not the numbers for a university of their own, and there was not that historical wall of division between them and their fellow-countrymen which unfortunately existed in Ireland. Unionists had always insisted on the duality of Ireland; and the worst way to create a real unity was to endeavour to force a factitious uniformity between alien elements. He found among his own friends the greatest misconception as to what was really asked for. The Irish hierarchy had laid down distinctly that the university they wanted should be subject to four conditions—(1) the majority of the governing body were to be laymen; (2) no chair of theology was to be endowed out of public funds; (3) the independence of the professors was to be guaranteed by the appointment of outside visitors; and (4) the
university was to be open to all comers. When they had a declaration of that kind, how could it be said that an endowment of Roman Catholicism was desired? He believed that, if these conditions were clearly laid down and endorsed by Irish Members opposite, and if they went before the Commission and made it perfectly clear in black and white that that was what

967
they asked for, they would have an irresistible case, not only with this House, but with the whole of the people of England. But he was afraid that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House could not be surprised if they found on the Ministerial side a certain very natural prepossession against anything that emanated from them. He feared that they had not been so mindful of the dignity of Parliament, so careful of the susceptibilities of Englishmen, so zealous for the honour and credit and integrity of the Empire, that now, when they asked for a large concession, they could expect to be welcomed with open arms by those who were concerned for the honour and credit of the Empire.
MR. DILLON: It is a pity we ever emancipated you.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he hoped, however, that the House would take a higher and broader view of the position. It was not a case of pleasing hon. Members opposite or of satisfying the Irish hierarchy, but it was a case of doing the right and proper thing by the young generation of Ireland.
MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member for East Clare and other hon. Members near him to refrain from interrupting.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: On the point of order, Sir, I desire to ask you whether the hon. Gentleman is in order, instead of addressing himself to the Chair, in addressing us and giving us a lecture.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is perfectly in order. He did address himself to the Chair.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid he was perfectly aware that what he had said would not be acceptable to hon. Members opposite, but every word he had said was true.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Why did your uncle stand by when the King insulted us? Why did not the Duke of Norfolk object?
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member persists in interrupting and obstructing the business of the House I shall have to call attention to his conduct.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman should not insult us.
MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that hon. Gentlemen opposite had prided themselves on the sentiments to which he had referred, and how, then, could they be insulting to them? French Canada was a source of strength to the Empire, because there the people had the education that suited them. Ireland was a source of weakness because Irish people had not been able to get the education which they had a right to. For educational and national reasons, and not because he was a Catholic, he trusted that this question would be settled on the lines suggested in the Amendment.
MR. CLANCY: Of the two speeches which have just been delivered I infinitely prefer that of the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. The hon. Member who has just sat down has presumed to lecture the Irish Nationalist Members on the dignity of Parliament and various topics. We want no lecture from the hon. Member, and, what is more, we will take no lecture from him. If we were to gain our demand by his single vote, I would rather lose it—non tali auxilio. The hon. Member's speech was most impertinent, and was characteristic of the class to which he belongs, and which always makes me think that the Catholics of Ireland were very ill-advised when they struggled for emancipation, and emancipated not only themselves, but such specimens of Catholicism as the hon. Gentleman opposite, who probably would have remained a slave to the present day but for the efforts of persons whom he now has the impudence—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must withdraw that expression.
MR. CLANCY: The word has been used frequently.
MK. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must withdraw the expression.
MR. CLANCY: I did not hear what you said, Mr. Speaker, but I, of course, withdraw any expression that you regard as unparliamentary. But the substance, of what I say is perfectly plain. The speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh voiced the sentiments of Portadown—sentiments which I will illustrate with a short story. A Protestant was conversing with an artisan, also a Protestant, on Portadown station, when the former said to the artisan, "You ought not to speak so badly of the Pope, because he is a very good-living man"; and the artisan replied, "Well, all I can say is this—the Pope may be a very good man, but he has a very bad name at Portadown. The right hon. and gallant Member spoke on behalf of a very small and fanatical minority, rather than on behalf of the great bulk of the Protestants even of Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Member pointed to the "manifestations of disloyalty" which had come from the Irish benches, and made that the ground for refusing the demand for further educational facilities for the Catholics of Ireland. That, surely, is an argument against himself, for if the result of the present system of education in Ireland has been to produce those disloyal persons [pointing to the Irish Nationalist Members], it is only reasonable to expect that an extension of university education would lead to an improvement. Apparently the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that, bad as we are now, we would be ten times worse if we were better educated. That may be, but the future will speak for itself. I observed that when the right hon. and gallant Member was speaking of manifestations of disloyalty, many hon. Members around him enjoyed it, and regarded the whole thing as a joke; but the Members who have to deal with the problem of governing the people of Ireland were as glum as death. They did not laugh. They know very well—probably the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself knows—that the result of the present system has been to
970
produce what are called a "band of rebels." I do not apologise for those "rebels," because everything they have done is justified by British rule. One of the causes of their disloyalty is the fact that they have been refused those educational rights which are never denied to any free people except by a tyrant who uses his power as a tyrant.
The right hon. Gentleman asked, "What have we to give in return for this boon?" Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that justice is to be sold? If our demand is just, why should anything be given in return for the granting of it? If it is unjust, refuse it; but if it is just, why ask any price for it? It should be given freely and voluntarily. The result would be to make discontented people contented. We have two sets of opponents on this question. The right hon. and gallant Member represents a small and fanatical minority of Irish Protestants. All Irish Protestants, I am glad to say, are not opposed to this demand. Trinity College itself has declared, through the mouths of several of its leading spokesmen, in favour of it; and it is supported by the two Members for Trinity College. The principle was also assented to, during the debate on the Home Rule Bill in 1893, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Solicitor General for England. The majority of the Presbyterians are, I think, opposed to it, but the opposition is not unanimous, for one of the principal lawyers in Ireland, and one of the leaders of the Presbyterian body, delivered a lecture in support of the claim in Queen's College, Belfast, with the president of the college in the chair. In a recent speech the Marquess of Londonderry said that to assent to the proposal made on behalf of the Catholics of Ireland would be to do an injustice to the Protestants of Ireland. I deny emphatically that any real injustice would be done. This cry comes badly from the opponents of this demand. The Protestants were planted in Ireland as a garrison, and got the fat of the land; indeed. Trinity College itself was built and endowed on the ruins and out of the revenues of a Catholic college. It is living to-day on the proceeds of the pious founders of 300 years ago, who were all Catholics. Catholics have been allowed to grow up almost brutalised without

971
education; they have been deprived of nearly all means of getting on in the world, and now, after 300 years, when this really miserable demand is made, a representative of the Protestants of Ireland gets up and says it is an injustice to Irish Protestants. I should have thought a gentleman like the right hon. and gallant Member opposite would have defied Portadown, and said, "After 300 years we do owe something to the Catholics, and I for one am willing to pay the debt."
But if the conduct of the Protestants is reprehensible, that of the Presbyterians is absolutely mean. The Presbyterians were persecuted as the Roman Catholics were, and when the Roman Catholics were emancipated the Presbyterians were also at the same time. It was our agitation that obtained for them religious equality and the rights they now possess. They never obtained anything for themselves. Even to-day they are in the habit of allowing the Catholics to work for them, and then, when a beneficial Act is obtained, they come in and reap the fruits. I solemnly declare that for my part I would rather have the enmity of an outspoken institution like Trinity College, objectionable though it is from every point of view to the Catholics of Ireland, than the miserable system of sectarian education which the Presbyterian mind so devotedly admires.
I come now to our British opponents. I understand that a large majority of the Liberal party are opposed to this demand, but we have never yet had an authoritative declaration to that effect from the Front Bench. Unionist Members at the last election pledged themselves in their addresses that the British Parliament was willing to do for Ireland everything that an Irish Parliament would do itself. We challenge those Members to say that an Irish Parliament would not decide this question in the way we desire, and we call upon them to fulfil that pledge. As to Members on this side of the House I recollect the hon. Member for Carnarvon speaking to this effect—
"I was willing during the debates on TNT Home Rule Bill to give you the power of establishing a Catholic university for Ireland if you wished, but I am not willing to vote here for it myself."
972
The distinction he drew was that in the one case he would not be responsible for a thing he disliked, while in the other case he would. I say that is futile and trifling; it is pure humbug. He would be equally responsible in cither case, and he ought to be ashamed to use such an argument.
But let me face frankly the great objection urged against a Catholic university. The right hon. and gallant Member put it brutally, perhaps, when he said that such a university would be dominated by the Catholic clergy. I do not admit that that is so. The argument has been put in this way—that the Catholics of Ireland cannot expect this Protestant nation to contribute to that in which they do not believe, and which they detest. That is a curious illustration of the absolute incapacity of some people to take account of the position of others. Supposing we were arguing for a Catholic university—one with religious tests, and one which must remain Catholic to the end of time because tests were imposed—have we not as much right to ask for that as the Presbyterians of Ulster have to ask for a non-sectarian university? Suppose Catholics regarded with horror the system of education called non-sectarian, and looked upon it as certain in its results to lead to indifference in religious matters, to infidelity, immorality, and bad citizenship, and felt it a grievance to be obliged to contribute towards its propagation and maintenance. Have they not, as taxpayers, as much right as Protestants have to demand what they think to be right? What superiority or infallibility have the Protestants to say they are right and we are wrong? The Nonconformists say that this is a Protestant nation, and that you cannot do a thing which offends the convictions and susceptibilities of the people. That means that all your boasts of religious equality are a sham, and that you still maintain a Protestant ascendency in this realm. You say that all sects are equal before the law, and that all denominations are upon a level, and yet when we make this demand in accordance with our religious tenets we are told, "Oh, the equality does not extend to that. We are still a Protestant nation, and to any-thing which offends the Protestant

973
convictions and susceptibilities of the nation we will object," If that is the argument, it is an argument against all that has been done during the last fifty years to establish religious equality. If it be true, the Irish Church aught never to have been disestablished, or a single penny voted for the education of Catholics in Ireland. All should have been brought up as strict Protestants. The opponents of this demand should have the courage of their convictions, and say as Cromwell once said—"I do not object to the Catholics of Ireland practising their religion—they may do as they like, but they must not go to mass." That is exactly the same position as when it is said that there is religious equality in this land, but not such equality as will permit Irish Catholic parents to educate their children as their consciences dictate.
Then, I desire to draw attention to the remarks of Lord Londonderry the other day on the question of this Commission. Lord Londonderry as well as Lord Cadogan is a member of the Cabinet, and I should like the Chief Secretary or the First Lord of the Treasury to explain his Lordship's statement at Belfast; it would throw a great light upon the meaning of the appointment of this Commission. Lord Cadogan is in favour of our demand, and has repeatedly said so. We also know that Lord Londonderry is not in favour of our demand, and yet he, too, is in favour of the appointment of this Commission. I would like to know whether it is the Londonderry or the Cadogan element that is going to be uppermost in this Commission. It is all the more necessary to ask this question, because Lord Londonderry himself has laid stress upon the composition of the Commission. He said in a speech delivered in Belfast that what we have to do is to see that the Commission is properly constituted, but what is properly constituted from Lord Londonderry's point of view cannot be so from the point of view of Lord Cadogan. With most of the speech of the hon. Member for W. Galway I entirely agree, and this is one of the few questions upon which I do agree with him. I wish to point out, however, that the hon. Member could not have been elected for W. Galway if he had not declared himself
974
in favour of a Roman Catholic university for Ireland. With one of the pleas put forward by the hon. Member I do not agree. He spoke of the poverty of Ireland as a ground why this demand should be granted, but I object to put the case upon that ground. We do not come to the House as beggars upon this question.
MR. MORRIS: I did not put it upon that ground, though I did say that the Catholics of Ireland were incapable of founding a university for themselves on account of their poverty.
MR. CLANCY: I contend that that is a plea of begging, and I will not make any such plea on behalf of Ireland. We are only asking for what we are entitled to. I will take every opportunity of saying that we do not ask for one single penny of English money, for whatever sum of money is given to us, whether it is one, two, three, or five millions, you will not be giving us one penny which you have not robbed Ireland of in the past. I will never admit that whatever money Ireland gets from the British Treasury is due to the generosity of England, or that it is anything else but a restitution of our stolen or plundered property. I put our demand upon the ground of justice. The Protestants of Ireland are amply endowed; but the Catholics, who are in a great majority in Ireland, are without endowments. As taxpayers we have a right to equal treatment for our educational needs. I should be ashamed to go back to my constituents if for a moment I put this simple demand for justice upon any other ground than that we are entitled as of right to what we are asking for.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,): I desire to intervene in this debate for a very short time, not at all as a member of the Government, but as representing Trinity College, Dublin, in this House. I do so with certain regrets, because I would much rather that the task could have been undertaken by my colleague, whose absence from illness I am sure the House deplores. As has been pointed out, I was myself probably the first member from Ireland representing a Unionist constituency,

975
certainly the first representing Dublin University, who gave my support to propositions for doing something for the higher education of Catholics in Ireland—something that would satisfy the demands of the great majority of the population. I have taken up that attitude now for many years, and I have upon every occasion, I think, that this question has come before the House expressed my views fearlessly, and I hope clearly. Upon the last occasion I had the honour of being returned as the Member of Parliament for Trinity College, notwithstanding a very strong speech to the contrary by the eminent gentleman who did me the honour of opposing me, I felt it my duty to again reiterate those sentiments. I did that because, in the first place, I was convinced of the necessity of conceding these demands in some form or another; and, in the second place, I believed that, in taking up this attitude as a representative of Trinity College, I was acting in accordance with the Liberal traditions of the University of Dublin. I suppose the majority of hon. Members will agree that the highest ideal of a university would be one in which students of all religions, and even those of no religion, might meet upon a common platform. I myself look back with the greatest pride and pleasure to the friendships of gentlemen of a different religion to my own which I made and cemented within the walls of Trinity College, Dublin; and those friendships which are made in a university career are perhaps the best that one makes through the whole period of our professional life. If I were asked and had the power to set up an ideal university for the education of the youth of Ireland, I should prefer to set up one such as we have had to a large extent established, not only in Trinity College, but all over the kingdom, in which all religions and all creeds meet together upon a common platform. I know that a strong argument put forward against the demands of Irish Catholics is that it is a fatal thing to put young men at the very outset of their career in opposite camps, and to bring them up apart and separate the one from the other. That may be true to a large extent; the present system in Ireland has, however, been tried, and Roman Catholics have not taken advantage of it.
976
For my part I value so highly a university training that I would make almost any sacrifice which would enable Roman Catholic young men to receive the benefits of such a training.
It is essential, at any rate for Englishmen, who probably do not know exactly how the question of university education stands in Ireland, to see what efforts have been made in the past to bring about what I have called the ideal state of university training. In the first place, there is Trinity College. Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, and to the very able speech which we all listened to with so much pleasure made by my hon. friend the Member for Galway, one would be led to think that in Trinity College we have some great bigoted Protestant institution. Such is not the case. Trinity College was originally founded for the purpose of propagating the Protestant religion in Ireland. Even since the year 1873, which is now somewhat ancient history, every office, every fellowship, every prize in Trinity College is accessible without any test to any person of any religion whatsoever. The governing body of the University of Dublin is open to persons of all religions and creeds, inasmuch as the board of Trinity College is composed of fellows according to seniority. If the Roman Catholics had gone freely into the college and captured the fellowships, the Catholic fellows would necessarily in time have become members of the governing body. True it is that there is attached to the University of Dublin a divinity school, but I would remind the House that as large a grant as £400,000 has been given to the Catholics by Parliament for the purpose of founding a Catholic divinity school at Maynooth. Trinity College has always been perfectly willing that Roman Catholics should have within the walls of the college exactly the same treatment as Protestants have, by the instruction and services of Roman Catholic priests. Notwithstanding all this, it is perfectly true that we are not educating in a university career the large majority of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. But let it not be supposed that Trinity College is the bigoted Protestant institution that has been described by some hon. Members. If the governing

977
body of Trinity College were asked to-morrow to have exactly the same institutions inside the walls for Catholics as they have for Protestants, they would themselves welcome the overture and do all in their power to meet any such suggestion. Another attempt was made when the Queen's colleges were established, in which no religion was taught. That, however, was not what either Protestants or Catholics in Ireland desired. No sooner were they established than they were denounced as godless colleges, because there was no religious education there at all. The Queen's colleges, with the exception of the one in Belfast, which has practically become a Presbyterian college, have been an utter failure in bringing about what was desired. Another effort was made when the Royal University was established, which was not really a university in any proper sense. There they attempted to bring about a satisfactory state of things for Catholics and Protestants alike by, I think, establishing a board on which there should be almost an equal number of Protestants and Catholics. But the Royal University has been rather less successful than the Queen's colleges, because it does not give the advantages of university education, and certainly in connection with that university the way in which the professors are appointed seems to me to be little less than a scandal. I am not now saying that because I object in the least to the endowment. Of course my speech is directly the contrary of that. You have had all these efforts, and you have had all this money spent with the view of bringing about an ideal university. That has failed. We have bad. I am glad to say, within the walls of Trinity College about 10 per cent. of Catholic students who. I venture to say, have no ground of complaint against the institution for trying to interfere with their faith or morals. I think the best testimony to that is the fact that the hon. Member for Galway himself has passed unscathed in that respect through its portals, as his father had done, and. I believe, a distinguished brother of the hon. Member is at present within the walls of Trinity College. But while that is so, we cannot but say that the Catholics of Ireland are still without university education. The question
978
before the House is, Are you going to leave them in that condition for ever simply because you say you will not devote public funds to sectarian purposes? If you do not do that, what are the various alternatives before us to settle the question? With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I would say that Trinity College. Dublin, is not on its trial in this matter, and is not to be considered at all. If every privilege that is given to Protestants inside Trinity College were given to Catholics, the Roman Catholic Bishops would not be satisfied. On the other hand, they would not be satisfied if an Act were passed saying that no religion of any kind should be taught there You must face the real facts of the case.
I should like to ask hon. Members who object to this scheme of what are they afraid. For my own part, while I should be sorry to say anything that could be thought disrespectful, I should prefer Roman Catholicism highly educated to Roman Catholicism in ignorance, and the only way in which that result can be brought about is by the establishment of some system of higher education. I have attempted to show that Trinity College has done all that could be done by it in furtherance of this system, and that other efforts have also been made. Now, at all events, we are about to do something. For my own part, I hope and believe that the Commission which we are granting will be composed of men of the very highest character in educational matters, and it certainly could be a very grave misfortune if Catholics themselves were not to a very large extent represented on that Commission, as I am perfectly sure they will be. The hon. Member for East Mayo made a rather curious speech in regard to the inclusion or exclusion of the affairs of Trinity College, and I really could not make up my mind whether the hon. Member wished Trinity College to be included or excluded. All I can say is that when the deputation waited on the Lord Lieutenant to urge the appointment of such a Commission Bishop Healy, on behalf of the deputation, specially disavowed any desire to have the affairs of Trinity College included in the reference to the Commission, and the Lord Lieutenant most specifically

979
stated that Trinity College would not be included. If you concede that what you want is not a mixed education inside Trinity College or the exclusion altogether of religious education from Trinity College, you must recognise that the only other alternative, if the affairs of Trinity College are to be included, would be to turn it into a Catholic seminary of some kind, which, I think, no person of sense would suggest. Nothing therefore that could be inquired into in relation to the college could in the slightest degree advance the object which hon. Members opposite and the Bishops of Ireland have in view. I have attempted to put the situation clearly and fairly before the House, and I can only say that, so far as I am concerned, I shall keep the attitude I adopted when I entered the House, and will give any assistance in my power to put within the reach of the great mass of the people of Ireland the benefit of university education.
MR. JOHN GORDONsaid he simply desired to express his views in regard to the question of Catholic university education in Ireland as it had been represented to the House and in the form in which it had been put down in the Paper. At first sight there was not much to object to, but when regard was had to the way in which the question had developed, it would be seen that the idea was to have an entirely separate Roman Catholic university in Ireland. As a Member of the Presbyterian religion of Ireland, he wished to give his view in regard to that. The first question which would arise was why the Roman Catholics had not equal facility for university education with the other inhabitants of the country. In Ireland at the present time there was an old university, established for centuries, and whatever might be its past history, everyone knew that it was open to all, no matter what religious belief was professed. If any body desired to have religious education, Trinity College would be delighted to meet them and afford them every facility for obtaining religious instruction. When, under those circumstances, Government were asked to set up a separate. Roman Catholic university,
980
it would be wise to consider what underlay the proposals which had been pressed so often, with so much vigour, both within and without this House, for separate denominational education, There was something more than a desire to have a good education. The Queen's Colleges, which had been established on non-sectarian lines, had been described as godless colleges. The people who sent their children to those colleges had a right to look after the religious training of the members of their own church, and they had appointed persons to look after their religious education; but why should that be paid for by the Government? The Presbyterians of Ireland were satisfied to send their children to the Queen's Colleges to be trained by the clergyman appointed in residence to look after them. Why did not the Roman Catholics do the Same? Directly those colleges were founded they denounced them as godless colleges, and would have nothing to do with them. The college established in Belfast was availed of by the population of Ulster to a very large extent, but the Roman Catholics, instead of making the college in Cork the success which the Belfast college was, which they could easily have done, kept away from it, and now complained that the Protestants had used the colleges and made them useful for their own people, and argued that as the Presbyterians were adequately provided for, they having taken advantage of the colleges placed in their midst, that was an argument for establishing Roman Catholic colleges for the rest of the population. In 1873 an attempt was made to do something for university education in Ireland, and the Royal University was established, upon the lines of the London University, granting degrees as high as any in the world, but having no religious teaching, That had the element of being free and untrammelled, and open to every person who chose to come and take advantage of its degrees. The student was not subjected to any religious test. He was perfectly free to come; and be educated there. Why should there be in Ireland a State-founded and State-endowed university simply for the purpose of satisfying the wishes of one particular religious denomination? In Ireland the

981
people should be, as far as possible, on an equality. The, people should be judged or classed, not according to their religion, and provided for upon that basis, but simply as subjects of the country. Trinity College was perfectly free and open, and religious instruction would be provided for Roman Catholics in exactly the same way as for Protestants. An institution was not denominational simply because, while it was open to all, only one particular section took advantage of it and filled its halls. Other people had a perfect right, and were at liberty to go there and take up the same position. He was not concerned to defend Trinity College to any greater extent than to say that it was open and free. The Queen's Colleges were also open and free, but it was idle to say that those colleges were in any sense to be regarded as godless colleges. Every religion had a right to appoint its dean, and did so, with the exception of the Roman Catholics. It was said that Trinity College belonged to the Episcopalians, and was an Episcopalian university, and that therefore the Catholics required a Catholic university. That Roman Catholic university would have to be endowed, provided for, and equipped by the State. Then there would have to be a Presbyterian university. Where was it to end? Was a university to be provided for all the smaller religious denominations which existed? Every denominational institution had been widening its lines and opening its halls to all students, no matter to what denomination they belonged, and to establish such a university as was now asked for would be a distinctly retrograde step. No parallel could be found. It was argued that the Scotch universities were Presbyterian. Yes, but they were not Presbyterian in foundation; they were not State-aided Presbyterian institutions. They were established for the benefit of everybody, and it was perfectly true that in Scotland, where the vast majority of the people were Presbyterians, the Presbyterians flocked to the universities. But that was a very different thing from establishing and endowing a university solely for one class of the community. The way in which the question had been argued was very curious. The
982
hon. Member for Galway had said a great deal about the benefits to be gained by people coming from different parts of the country, interchanging their views, and making friends for themselves for life. The right hon. Gentleman representing Trinity College had referred to the same matter. This was a point which ought not to be lost sight of in dealing with educational questions in Ireland; there were in Ireland quite enough causes of difference, and quite enough matters which created dissension; but why should another be permanently added to the number? Members of one profession worked together, met each other every day, and, although belonging to different religious bodies, had the greatest respect for each other. Why should the sons of these men be sent one, because he belonged to one religious faith, to one university, and another, because he belonged to another religious faith, to another university, to be brought up with feelings of distrust and estrangement existing between them, where all ought to be amity and friendship?
With reference to the proposed Commission, whatever views might be held about Trinity being brought within the scope of the inquiry, if the Commission was to deal with the matter on the broad lines which ought to be laid down, he was unable to see how Trinity College could be excluded. The hon. Member for East Mayo suggested that on the Commission there should be two or three members advocating the one view, two or three supporting the other, and that some poor unfortunate persons who did not care about either should be thrown in to be torn to pieces by the conflicting opinions. He also appeared to imply that it would be impossible to get men of high educational standing, with a knowledge of public affairs, who would be above party and sectarian feelings. He (the speaker) did not believe that that would be the ease, and he urged those who would be responsible for selecting the Members of the Commission to endeavour to appoint, not partisans from the one side or the other, but men of acknowledged standing, who would be able when dealing with a question of this kind to put aside mere personal feelings and to treat the subject on broad lines.

983
As one who knew something of the Protestants of Ireland, he unhesitatingly declared that with the exception of a very few the Protestants were against this proposal. They considered that it would be a step in the wrong direction, that it would accentuate differences which ought to be healed rather than perpetuated, and that, above all, university education in Ireland would suffer by it. In a country with 4,250,000 inhabitants, the vast majority of whom were very poor, it would be a great mistake to have three separate and distinct universities. The degrees of such institutions would cease to carry any weight whatever. Parliament should be careful not to do anything which would encourage the idea of an endowed separate denominational university in Ireland. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Except for Protestants.] The Protestants had not asked for an endowment, and where had the Presbyterians got a separate Presbyterian university? They asked nothing for themselves which they did not freely concede to every other man in the country. Hon. Members opposite could not cite a fact or document or an incident in the history of the country which would bear them out in the suggestion they had made. He hoped the House would reject this proposal.
MR. HEMPHILL: As an Ulster Member I wish to place before the House of Commons the claims of my Catholic fellow-countrymen upon this question. I could not be satisfied with giving a silent vote upon this occasion. I had not the advantage of hearing the entire speech of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, but such portion as I did hear reminded me of the old fable of the dog in the manger. The hon. Member purported to speak on behalf of the Presbyterians of Ireland, and he argued that they did not want a university. But was that any reason why a university should be withheld from the Catholics of Ireland, who do require it? They did not want a university as Presbyterians, because they have already got all the advantages of education through the medium of the Belfast college, but I am not at all sure that a great section of the Presbyterians have not put forward a claim by which they also will get a university as well as
984
the Catholics. The Presbyterians of Ireland know how to take care of themselves, and my hon. and learned friend evidently had not this historical fact before his mind, that by the Scotch Act of Union the benefit of university education was secured to the Presbyterians of Scotland. They made it a condition when entering into the Treaty of Union, but unfortunately when the Irish Act of Union was passed there was no one to speak on behalf of the Catholics, in order to secure to them the same measure of of justice. I cannot believe that the Presbyterians of Ireland are in any way, as a body, averse to the concession of this boon to the Catholics. On the contrary, I believe that those whose opinions are of the greatest weight are altogether in favour of it. I am coming forward to support what I believe to be the least measure of justice that my Irish fellow-countrymen are entitled to, and I am willing to meet this case and argue it quite apart from the case of the Presbyterians. The hon. Member for Galway, in a most admirable maiden speech, which contained a good deal of the hereditary ability of his father, stated that he came forward as the only Catholic Liberal Unionist in the House. [Cries of "No, no."] I believe he called himself a Catholic Liberal Unionist.
MR. RENTOUL: No, the only Catholic Unionist.
MR. HEMPHILL: Perhaps he did not call himself a Liberal Unionist, but I thought that all Unionists who were not Tories were proud of being Liberal Unionists, and I understand that the essence of a Liberal Unionist is that he is Liberal in everything except Home Rule. The hon. Member for Galway says that he is the only representative of Catholic Unionism in Ireland. I may say that I am the only representative of what may be called Protestant Liberalism in Ireland. All my friends on both sides are possibly far less Liberal than me, but I happen to be unique in this, that I am the only Protestant Liberal sent from Ireland to plead the cause of Liberal Protestants in this great assembly. I protest against the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down purporting to speak on behalf of the Liberal Protestants of Ireland.

985
It is quite fair that he should represent Presbyterians, but he has no authority to say what the feelings of Liberal Protestants in Ireland are with regard to this question. I am a medalist of Trinity College, and I have spent some of the happiest days of my life there, and I join with my youthful friend the Member for Galway in expressing admiration for Trinity College as a great Protestant institution, but only as a Protestant institution. Trinity College was founded to propagate Protestantism in Ireland. It was founded by Queen Elizabeth three centuries ago in order to stamp out and extinguish the Roman Catholic religion, and for nearly three centuries it fulfilled that mission, and it was not until the year 1873 that a single emolument or a single fellowship or scholarship was thrown open to the Catholics. It has been suggested that Catholics, by passing fellowship and scholarship examinations, might partake of the benefits of the institution, but to do this they must un-Catholicise themselves. When I was there there were some eight per cent. of the entire pupils members of the Catholic religion, and I know well that there was a, feeling more or less of inequality and humiliation amongst them. Men of the ablest intellects and with the greatest industry saw their Protestant brethren come in for prizes from which they were excluded. It is admitted that though nominally Trinity College is open to Catholics, it is really a Protestant institution. I am not going to trouble the House with many quotations, because I know there are many hon. Members who wish to speak upon this subject. In the year 1891 I was present at the opening meeting of the Historical Society in the hall of Trinity College, where a very distinguished audience assembled, and upon that occasion a very eminent man of great literary qualification, who had been himself a fellow of the college, and who is now a county court judge—I allude to Judge Webb—used these words—
"Their University (said the judge) was founded by Protestants, for Protestants, and in the Protestant interest. A Protestant spirit had from the first animated every member of the body corporate At the present moment, with all its toleration, all its liberality, all its comprehensiveness, and all its scrupulous honour, the genius loci, the guardian spirit of the place, was Protestant. And as a Protestant
986
he for one said, and he said it boldly, Protestant might it ever more remain."
That was his opinion of the Protestantism at Trinity College. Upon the same occasion Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, who was then, and happily still is now, one of the greatest ornaments of the Irish Bench, said—
"They in that University claimed to be proud of their college and content with their University. Their work challenged competition; it therefore should he free from disturbance. But if it was to be made safe from disturbance, it should rest on the foundation of justice, and that could only be laid by the States providing for others what Queen Elizabeth and King James and their own conscientious discharge of their duty for three hundred years had provided for that place."
That is from a Protestant Unionist—a man of the greatest eminence among living Irishmen. Now that is all they ask. We, the Presbyterians, are satisfied with the status quo as regards Trinity College, but three-quarters of the Irish people are Roman Catholic, and they demand to have what they are fairly entitled to—a university in which their youth may matriculate and graduate without any scruple or fear of having their faith shaken or disturbed. One of the great fallacies is that Dublin College is, as at present constituted, sufficient to satisfy the wants of the Irish people. Reference has again been made to Scotland. Scotland has a population even now of much less than Ireland, low as the population of the latter is at this moment, and yet Scotland has the Universities of Edinburgh, St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen. All these universities are largely endowed. I do not know whether they are at the present moment endowed by original grants from the Crown, like the case of Trinity College, but undoubtedly the fact is that each has considerable endowments. I quote now from the title "University" in the
Encyclopœdia Britannica, which we know is a work of singular authority—
"The sums voted annually or charged on the Consolidated Fund for the ten years ending 30th March, 1883, were for Aberdeen,
£65,821; for Edinburgh, £85,906; for Glasgow, £66,182; and St. Andrews, £38,111, In addition to these sums Edinburgh had received £80,000 and Glasgow £20,000 in the form of grants in aid."
Why should Ireland be in a worse position than Scotland for the sons of farmers

987
and small shopkeepers? If there was nothing else to render the demand of the Irish people unanswerable it is that the people were too poor at present to compete with those who are in the habit of sending their sons to Trinity College. I think that is what the hon. Member for Galway meant, in that I would be inclined to agree with him. I want that a young Irishman who may be in a very humble position, who may not be endowed with the gifts of fortune, should have the portals of a university thrown open to him, where he could enter without fear and without scruple. I know that Trinity College can now admit other colleges to be affiliated with it, but I, as an Irishman, having had considerable experience of various shades of life and society in that country, am satisfied that the true and best solution of this question is to start a university, de novo, constituted on the lines to which attention has been called by the hon. Member for the Brightside Division, who marred an interesting
and liberal speech by an unnecessary attack on my friends below the gangway (the Nationalist Members). Perhaps if he had been Irish, and if he had been brought up with the antecedents of some of my friends below the gangway, if he had been brought up in the traditions of a persecuted race, he would have had a more sympathetic feeling for the position in which they are placed.
MR. JAMES HOPE: What I said was that hon. Members opposite were spoiling a good case.
MR. HEMPHILL: I am sure that no one now regrets the observations into which he was betrayed more than the hon. Member himself. If I wanted an argument in favour of my position I would refer to the fact that amongst the Gentlemen occupying the benches below the gangway are some of the keenest intellects in this House, and some of the most eloquent speakers in this House. Everyone who has been watching the proceedings of the House since the opening of the present Parliament must admit that I am right in what I am saying and vet very few of them have had the opportunity of graduating in a university. Why should such men be
988
placed under circumstances that deprive them of the advantage of university education? We all go on the postulate that there is great value and importance to be attached to university degrees. Why exclude any class of clever, intelligent Irishmen from attaining that position? Why prevent the priesthood of Ireland from being armed with a university degree? I would like to appeal to the sense of justice, to the love of fair play—which, however, in some instances it may be overlaid with political prejudice or religious bigotry, is, I believe, the bedrock of the English nature—not to withhold this advantage from three or four millions of the Irish people. It will cost very little. The conditions read out by the hon. Member show that it is not a Roman Catholic university that is sought but a university into which Roman Catholics may enter, a university not presided over by a man who has brought his great talent and genius to bear in the polemical controversy between the Church of Rome and the Church of Ireland, to the disparagement of the former.
MR. MACARTNEY: In the course of the debates which have taken place on this question in previous sessions we have not had much enlightenment as to the real character of the organisation of the university proposed to be set up, for both on this side of the House and on the other side the supporters of this project have carefully abstained from departing from the platform of vague generalities, and from defining in clear and precise language what are the limitations by which this new university is to be established and maintained as an undenominational institution, and at the same time to be impregnated with the Roman Catholic atmosphere. Rut though we have only got so far as to understand that Roman Catholic atmosphere is an essential, if not the most essential, feature of this university, and though we have not yet been informed by what machinery this Catholic atmosphere is to be generated, the debates which have taken place have not been altogether without some real value, for the House is now in possession of the general facts bearing on

989
the question at large, which cannot be overlooked in dealing with the nebulous proposal placed before Parliament. We in the first place know that in England Roman Catholics go to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge with the fullest sanction of the spiritual authority of their Church; and we know that neither the organisation, nor the Government, nor the curriculum of these universities differs in any distinctive feature from the University of Dublin. We know, moreover, that in foreign countries Roman Catholic students go to universities which are as little under the control of the clergy of the Church of Rome as the Queen's colleges in Ireland; and that in no foreign country does the State provide specially for the university education of Roman Catholics. We further know that in Roman Catholic countries, such as Spain and Bavaria, institutions founded and endowed by the Roman Catholic Church have now been secularised. It is plain from all this that this proposal is one that cannot be substantiated by any appeal to the condition of affairs in foreign countries, and that the Roman Catholic Church and bishops in Ireland are now endeavouring to obtain from this Parliament what they have not been able to obtain from any legislative authority or assembly in Europe. There is another fact which we cannot overlook, and that is that members of the Roman Catholic Church have been in the habit of taking advantage of the facilities for university education that are afforded in Ireland; and it has never even been suggested in this House, in any debate, that any one of these students have been seduced from the faith of their Church.
COLONEL NOLAN: I knew one.
MR. MACARTNEY: I will give the hon. and gallant Member an opportunity afterwards of substantiating his case; but I say that there has been no suggestion that any Roman Catholic student has been seduced from the faith of his Church—[An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: There have been several.]—or has suffered the slightest inconvenience from the atmosphere of Trinity College The hon. Member for
990
Galway spoke of Trinity College being the symbol of Protestant ascendency, but what has it done for his distinguished father? It has promoted him to the highest offices, and that distinguished peer felt so much the benefit of the education he himself had received at Trinity College that he sent there not only the hon. Member, but the hon. Member's younger brother.
MR. MORRIS: I said that there was no alternative, if a Catholic student wanted to follow a university career in Ireland.
MR. MACARTNEY: My argument is that there was no danger to the faith of either his father, himself, or his brother. That is a material fact which this House cannot overlook, and I submit that the House must come to the conclusion that if it were not for some special and peculiar pressure exercised by the bishops in Ireland, the laity would take larger advantage of the facilities that are offered by Trinity College, just as the laity do in Italy, Germany, Spain, Bavaria, and other Roman Catholic countries. These being the facts, let us see how far we have got in formulating any definite proposals for this scheme. The Leader of the House, the First Lord of the Treasury, said in the month of February, 1898, that
"the Roman Catholic bishops would be content that any new educational institution in Ireland should be placed under the same limitations—no less and no more—that now exist in the universities of England and Scotland."
Well, if it were desirable to multiply universities in Ireland—a policy which is extremely doubtful, having regard to the population of the country—there would, in my opinion, be no great objection to a university which was founded and organised upon that general preposition. But my right hon. friend went on to point out very clearly in the rest of his speech that that was a mere phrase, that it had no real meaning, and that it did not touch the essence of the policy of which he himself was a supporter. And he went on to say that—
"of course it is the essence of the case that the college or university should be founded upon such lines as would make it Roman Catholic in the same sense that Trinity College is Protestant: and that you must do that or you will fail in your policy."
Now here there is a cleavage of the most

991
profound character—a cleavage between the system of the English universities and Trinity College and this new university-proposed to be set up—a cleavage which separates them entirely and distinctly. The atmosphere of the English universities is not the product of legislation; but you have at once a forewarning from my right hon. friend that by legislation you are going to impress upon this new university an atmosphere, an organisation which is something absolutely and entirely different from anything which exists in any English university, or in the university of Dublin. Well, it is plain that this must be carried out with some limitations. What these limitations are the House is absolutely ignorant. My right hon. friend has never told us what he proposed to do in regard to them. These limitations are still shrouded in a mass of vague generalities, and it is not to my right hon. friend, but to the Front Bench opposite, that the House is indebted for coming more closely in touch with the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs in the same debate laid down five different conditions which were essential to any scheme to which he would give support in the future. These were: First, that there was to be no test for any chair except that of theology; second, no test for any student; third, no student was to be shut out from any competition on account of his religion; fourth, there was to be no State endowment of the theological faculty; and fifth, the most important of all, that the governing body was to be nominated by this House, and afterwards replenished by the Crown.
MR. DILLON: No, no.
MR MACARTNEY: These are the conditions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs. What we have now to consider is how they approach the ideal of Catholic education in Ireland. That matter has been pronounced upon by one of the bishops of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in a clear and unmistakeable note. The Bishop of Limerick said, in regard to the conditions formulated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs—
"It must be evident to the least informed person that an institution constituted under
992
these five conditions cannot be regarded as a Catholic university in the true sense of the word. … In a Catholic university the authority of the Pope would be supreme, and reach directly and indirectly every part of its organisation and pervade and inform its operation. He would grant its charter and sanction its degrees. All its intellectual life would be carried on under ecclesiastical supervision and control."
Now, that is a perfectly clear and frank definition of what the atmosphere of a Roman Catholic university should be.
MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. The reverend bishop went on to say that he would accept such a university as was proposed by the right hon. the Member for Montrose Burghs.
MR. MACARTNEY: If any hon. Gentleman goes to the Library and looks up the
Nineteenth Century for January, 1899, he can satisfy himself whether I am not actually quoting the words of the Bishop of Limerick. This is a perfectly frank exposition of what ought to be the atmosphere of a Roman Catholic university, and which cannot be created under the conditions postulated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs. Here we have, on the one side, the ideal of the Catholic bishops, and on the other side the makeshift presented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs. I ask the House, Does anyone suppose that the Catholic bishops of Ireland are going to withdraw from their ideal, or that they would rest for a moment until the new university would be so pervaded and so leavened in its constitution that the whole of the intellectual life of the university would in the future be under ecclesiastical control and authority? Anyone who has watched the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland will know that that is the inevitable result of the policy of my right hon. friend, however he may have intended otherwise. I ask how does this policy stand now? Is it a policy of developing in Ireland a university as we know it in this country, or as carried on on the Continent? Nothing of the sort; on the contrary, it is diametrically the opposite. It is a policy which proposes to create an atmosphere, and when

993
it has created that atmosphere to endow such an educational system as this atmosphere will not smother. As it has been very appropriately named, it is a policy of social expediency, because it undoubtedly prefers the bye-ways of political convenience to the ethics of education. This policy aims at destroying and limiting all the real elements of university life, until they are lowered to the level demanded by the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland. The right hon. Member for Montrose has gone as far as he could to try and meet the demand of his supporters below the gangway. The right hon. Gentleman said his policy was justified, because it was accepted by three late Chief Secretaries for Ireland, a most dangerous triumvirate. There are no persons whom the House ought to be more chary of following in a question of this sort. I will accept, for the purposes of argument, that the First Lord of the Treasury may be a most bigoted Protestant; but, if so, he is the last person to be entrusted with this problem, because fanatics of this description have a dangerous tendency to go from one extreme to the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose said he was opposed to clericalism, but in Irish matters he invariably capitulates to its forces, and, therefore, I hope the House will not accept the arguments of these three gentlemen, though they be ex-Chief Secretaries. It has been argued that there is a difference between a Roman Catholic university and a university for Roman Catholics. There is a difference, but it is only a difference of phraseology; in either case it is evident, from the statement of the Bishop of Limerick, that there must be what the Bishop calls ample security that the teaching will not be contrary to the principles of the institution. We have been told that the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland have accepted four out of five conditions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, and that we may quite accept this as a justification for this policy, but I do not admit that at all. Two of those conditions are absolutely immaterial. The faculty of theology we know is to be in this university. The Bishop of Limerick has told us that it is to be the principal factor in
994
creating a Roman Catholic atmosphere. Nothing appears to me to be more ridiculous than the affectation of unsectarianism which this proviso covers. This university must of necessity be under the control of the dominant theological faculty, and, just in order to enable the supporters of this policy to say the Government have not endowed the Roman Catholic Church, they have omitted to endow the faculty which is to control the study and teaching of the university. We are told also that the Roman Catholic bishops have consented to a majority of laymen, who must of necessity be Roman Catholics, being on the governing body. Under these circumstances, it is a matter which is absolutely immaterial whether the governing body is to be lay or clerical. A whisper from the Bishop of Limerick would govern all the Roman Catholic laity in Ireland—[Cries of
"Withdraw!" from the Irish Benches.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the hon. Gentleman had said anything which required to be withdrawn, I should have called upon him to withdraw it.
MR. MACARTNEY: The Bishop of Limerick would govern all the Roman Catholic laity of Ireland when anything occurred to affect the faith and morals of the Church. I say that these provisions which are put forward as security for undenominationalism in this university are absolutely unsubstantial. The Roman Catholic bishops know that they are unreal and empty, and therefore have no hesitation in accepting the makeshift that is put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose.
What is to be the result of this policy? At the age when university education begins for every Irishman you are going to divide my countrymen into two or three separate universities. The Roman Catholics are to go to this new university; the Presbyterians are to be taken by the neck and flung into the university at Belfast, and the Episcopalians are to go to Dublin. Just at the age when one is most likely to form those friendships and those acquaintances which do so much to soften the bitterness of political or religious feelings in after life you are going to take away every chance of this

995
being done, and are going to perpetuate in Ireland in connection with higher education that unfortunate division which has been countenanced already in primary education. Yet my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury and the supporters of this policy affect to believe that this is
going to benefit Ireland. The very class in Ireland upon whom the future of the country depends most is to be separated forcibly if this proposal passes, and is to be driven into three camps at a time when the students are most open to form those friendships which, as I have said, do so much to soften the bitterness of political and religious differences of after life. I can only say I look upon this policy of separation with absolute horror, and I say to treat the education of Ireland as a question of social expediency is unworthy of this House. The hon. Member for Stow-market will probably say this is a question of ancient prejudice. He presented himself to the House last year as the product of Scotch porridge and the national covenant, and he implored us all to divest ourselves of ancient prejudices, but he did not convince me. He, like Jacob, is emphatically a smooth man. This scheme has been presented to the House with many plausible representations, but none more plausible than that of the Solicitor General, who speaks with great authority on this matter. The Solicitor General said, "Let them start with what the Catholics offered to accept, namely, what the Protestants have got." What have the Protestants got in Ireland?
COLONEL NOLAN: What have the Catholics got?
MR. MACARTNEY: Trinity College, Dublin, which is the principal university, was open to students of every religion, and its fellowships and governing body were open to persons of every religion. The governing body is not under the control of the bishops of the Irish Church or the Presbyterian Assembly, and it is quite possible to conceive that the Professor of Divinity at Trinity College, Dublin, might in his lectures teach theology repugnant to the prevailing opinions of the bishops of the Irish Church and of the General Assembly.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: That is not the case. The test applied.
MR. MACARTNEY: But the Professor of Divinity might survive the test, and having changed his opinions deliver any lecture he chose. I adhere to my opinion. The Professor of Divinity might deliver lectures which were repugnant to the bishops of the Irish Church, but they would not have the slightest control over him. There is now a very strong feeling of dissatisfaction in certain sections of the Irish Church with regard to the teaching given by the professor at Trinity College. Is that the kind of university governing body which the Roman Catholic bishops are prepared to accept? This is one of the plausible forms in which this question is presented to the House, a form which when tested by examination fails entirely. There is no foundation for the argument of my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury, that because the primary education of Ireland is denominational so far as three-fourths of the country is concerned, the House ought to agree to a denominational university. Whether the schools are Protestant, Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic, the general teaching is undenominational, and I regret most strongly that the principle of unmixed schools has taken such a hold on the primary education of the country, and I cannot admit that having gone so far in the wrong direction in regard to primary education is any ground for applying to the higher education of the country a system which, in my opinion, is absolutely wrong. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman has the support of only one class in Ireland, and I fail to find that in that class there is any large majority which goes in for higher education. This is not a question merely of Trinity College; it is a question affecting the whole of the higher education of Ireland. All the graduates of the Royal University of Ireland are unanimously against this policy. On the 25th of June, 1900, there was a meeting of the graduates at which the following resolution was passed—
"We reaffirm our conviction that the establishment of State-endowed universities under sectarian control is repugnant not only to the fixed principles of modern educational policy, but also to the teaching of universal experience,

997
and, being detrimental to the best interests of higher education, cannot be made the basis of a satisfactory settlement of the Irish university question."
That is the voice of educated Ireland, and the House may listen to it or it may not, but it is as much entitled to a sympathetic hearing in this House as the councils of social expediency. If you do not listen to the voice of educated Ireland, how are you to be certain that this policy will succeed? Are you certain that the policy of my right hon. friend will settle all these difficulties? I have here the words of Dr: Alexander Dempsey, who wrote this letter to the Freeman's Journal in March last—
"Those who expect the Catholics of Belfast and the north of Ireland generally to be, satisfied with a college in Dublin to supply all their requirements for university education know little of the feeling of the people. The Catholics of this enterprising progressive city will not send their sons to Dublin where they have no friends or business relatives of any kind."
And he went on to postulate the demands of the Roman Catholics for the establishment of Roman Catholic university colleges in convenient centres throughout the country. The policy of social expediency is a long lane, the end of which no man can see, and we may rest assured if we once endow a denominational college in Dublin we shall have to go on endowing denominational colleges all over Ireland. As to the proposal to appoint a Royal Commission, no one will object to a Royal Commission investigating this subject in the fullest possible manner, but I cannot understand why Trinity or Maynooth College should be excluded from the purview of the Commission. If such exceptions are allowed, it can only end in the demolition of the scaffold upon which this policy has been erected. In the formation of this Commission I trust my right hon. friend will exclude from it everybody connected with education in Ireland. That is perfectly fair to all sides, but if my right hon. friend supposes he is going to obtain from the Commission a report upon which he can act, he is a much more sanguine man than my experience of Irish affairs would lead me to believe. It may be that the Commission is intended as only a stepping-stone, or an excuse, for the Government to carry out their policy. If that be so, I warn the Leader of the House that he cannot expect that its recommendations will be received with anything but the
998
most suspicious scrutiny. I cannot imagine why a Commission should be appointed at all, unless it is to inform the Lord Lieutenant, who seems to be one of the most uninformed persons in Ireland on education. It would have been much better for the Lord Lieutenant and his party if he had left the question alone. There have been useful Lords Lieutenants before him, who have been quite as successful, and who have failed in their attempt to deal with this problem. If ever this policy is carried out, the universities cannot but be deeply impregnated with a Roman Catholic atmosphere.
MR. BOLAND: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a most interesting speech, one point of which it is very important to consider, which was that in no foreign country could we find university education so endowed. That was a curious statement, and shows that the right hon. Gentleman could not have regarded the university education system of the British colonies. I approach this question with all the greater feeling because, unlike the majority of my fellow Nationalists, I have had the advantage of a varied university education, having attended the universities at London, Bonn, and Oxford; and it is exactly because I have had this advantage that I can feel what it is for my fellow-countrymen to be deprived of the advantage of education in their own country. In the British colonies we find that the position of the Catholics is recognised, and that there is what we call State endowment for universities for them. Last year, three weeks after the debate which took place on this question, a Parliamentary Paper was published showing the way in which university education was carried out in the British colonies, and within the last few days two volumes of Reports have been published by the Board of Education which add to the strength of my argument on this point. Let me quote from the introduction of Mr. Sadler—
"The chief characteristic of education throughout the British colonies is the freedom with which it has been allowed to adjust itself to the different needs experienced by different parts of the Empire. There has been no centralised control over educational policy, though literary and other traditions, have naturally had a strong influence on the scope and methods of instruction. The educational systems, as described in there volumes, are marked by the utmost variety of legislative enactment."

999
That is introductory to the whole of the volumes. Now let me come down to specific instances, and first—New South Wales. It will be found on page 2 of the Parliamentary Paper, page 239, Vol. 5, Education Report.
"In 1854, an Act of Legislature of New South Wales was passed to provide for he establishment and endowment of colleges within the University of Sydney. The preamble of the Act is as follows: 'Whereas it is expedient to encourage and assist the establishment within the University of Sydney (of colleges), in which systematic religious instruction and domestic supervision with efficient assistance in preparing for the university, teachers and examiners shall be provided for the students of the university, be it therefore enacted, etc. This Act provides, under certain conditions, for a grant from the Government of not less than £10,000 nor more than £20,000 for building purposes, in each case provided that an equal amount shall be raised by private subscriptions; and also for a grant of £500 per annum in perpetuity for the payment of the principal of each college."
The point I wish to come to is that, under that Act, the four Churches or religious denominations are the United Church of England and Ireland, the Church of Rome, the Church of Scotland, and the religious society denominated Wesleyan Methodists. I speak from personal experience. I visited this university, and have seen the particular college erected for the Catholics, and the Catholics of New South Wales are satisfied with the provsiion made.
Now I turn to the case of Canada (page 13, Parliamentary Paper; page 211, vol. 4, Education Report)—
"The Laval University was founded in 1852 (two years previous to the founding of the Catholic University in Dublin by Cardinal, then Dr., Newman) by the Seminary of Quebec at the request of the Bishops of Lower Canada. The aim was to throw open to the French Catholic population an institute of higher education capable of equalling in importance those frequented by persons of other languages and religion. The then Governor of Canada, Lord Elgin, and his ministers wrote: 'We have no hesitation in acknowledging the justice and propriety of securing to the numerous and important body of Catholics in Canada the benefit of a University of which they have been until now deprived.'"
Could anything more exactly fit the case of Ireland? This happened fifty years ago, but the Catholics of Ireland are still in the position then occupied by the Catholics of Canada. And with reference to the branch of the university estabished at Montreal, I find (page 18 of the Paper, page 214 of the Report) that there is a Government grant of 20,000 dollars distributed amongst the faculties
1000
of law and medicine, general administration, and the polytechnic and veterinary schools. This is in the case of a university solely for Roman Catholics. I come now to the third case—that of Malta—an important case, because it resembles Ireland in that by far the greater proportion of its population is Catholic. According to the Report—
"It appears that 99 per cent. of the people of these island are Roman Catholics, and that the instruction imparted in the University and in all Government Educational Institutions in this Colony is based on Roman Catholic principles."
I further find that for the year 1899 the expenditure provided for in the Annual Estimates for the university—attended solely by Catholics—was over £4,000. Here, then, are three colonies in which the university education is carried out in a way which is entirely agreeable to the religious opinions of the Catholics. Two of those colonies are self-governing, and the other is a Crown Colony. You say you have undertaken to govern Ireland better than she would do it herself. If that is so, you have a double responsibility cast upon you. In your self-governing colonies the just claims of Catholics are recognised; in Ireland no provision is made for such recognition, and you pursue a totally different policy from that adopted in the colonies. It has been said that the Irish priesthood cannot compare with the clergy in other countries. In reference to this matter I cannot help quoting an article which appears in the current issue of the Edinburgh Review, dealing very largely with this particular question of Catholic university education, as it affects the priesthood of Ireland.
"It is remarkable," says the writer, "that a State like Prussia, which is mainly Protestant, not only supports Catholic theological faculties in mixed universities, such as Bonn and Breslau, but also subsidises the Academy at Münster and the Lyceum at Braunsberg, which are practically entirely devoted to training candidates for the Catholic priesthood."
The writer further goes on to say—
"It is remarkable that at Bonn and Tübingen there is a Protestant as well as a Catholic theological faculty working side by side apparently without hostility or friction. This university training may account for the fact that the Catholic clergy in Germany have amply shared in the general intellectual activity of their country during the quarter of a century."
In the debate last year special reference was made to the reports from foreign

1001
countries with regard to university education, showing that the Catholics in those countries are satisfied with the facilities afforded to them. It therefore is not necessary for me to go into that point, but I should like to point out that Catholics abroad have everything they want in the way of university education. It is admitted that they are successful. We are always told that the Catholics of Germany have taken a high intellectual position, and we agree. Is it not a curious fact that you will not look into the case, and see that it is exactly because you do not give the Catholics of Ireland the fullest educational privileges that you are able to bring forward charges of a certain lack of culture—charges which are very difficult to refute, because the position is due to a lack of educational facilities? Sir Francis Bacon wrote in his letter to Lord Burghley, "I have taken all knowledge to be my province." If one man had taken all knowledge to be his province, surely a university should take all knowledge to be its province, and it is precisely because Dublin University has not done so that we come before you to-night and claim that you must enlarge the university facilities in Ireland. We have been told to-night that there is no reason to inquire into the case of Trinity College, but I consider that there is every reason for so doing. Remember, we on this side have no responsibility whatever for this Commission; but I would point out that this is not a question of merely founding a Catholic university, or a difficulty of which there is no other possible solution. Such is far from being the case. The Archbishop of Dublin, in a letter to the Dublin Daily Express, on November 16th, 1900, repeating the declaration of the Irish Hierarchy on this subject in 1871, points out that there are three possible solutions of the difficulty. He says—
"I have not concealed my personal preference for the settlement of our University question on the basis (1) of one National university for Ireland, a university, of course so constructed as to provide the maximum of possible freedom for all its colleges. Failing that, a settlement on the
basis (2) of the establishment of a second college in the University of Dublin has always seemed to me a good solution of the problem."
And yet the Catholics of Ireland are charged with being veiled in their demands!
"Both these lines of settlement have over and over again been considered at meetings of
1002
our Episcopal Hotly, with the result that both have been regarded as satisfactory. But the preference undoubtedly has always been given to (3) that form of settlement which was originally claimed in Cardinal Cullen's time, that is, the establishment of a separate University for Catholics."
There are, therefore, three possible solutions of the question admitted by the Irish hierarchy, the second of which contemplates the establishment of a second college in Dublin University. If, however, Trinity College is excluded from this inquiry, how will it be possible to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon that proposal?
There are many other points to which I should like to refer, but, as several other Members desire to speak, I will mention only one. There is an educational movement going on in Ireland which is not thoroughly appreciated in this country, and one of which Trinity College—the only existing university in Ireland, the Royal University is a sham—has taken no notice. I refer to the revival of our national language. How can a university claim to be in any sense a national university which ceases to regard the movements of the people? How could Oxford University have ever claimed to be a national university if it had not been thoroughly representative of the people and the great movements of the time? The great Tractarian Movement in the middle of the century is a case in point. But in regard to Dublin University we find nothing of the sort. A university which takes no interest in, or, as an hon. Member tells me, attacks a movement of such educational value as the Gaelic revival, cannot possibly be regarded as a national university. I would conclude by reminding the House that in the colonies this question has been treated as one of equity. Come nearer home, and look upon this claim of Irish Catholics as one which is at least deserving of as full and careful consideration as in any of your colonies, because we are older than any of them.
MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member who has just spoken has made a speech showing how the mind of young Ireland is moving on this question. Earlier in the debate we had another interesting maiden speech. The hon. Member for Galway, who made a brilliant first appearance, took his side with the majority of his fellow-countrymen.

1003
He told us he was a Unionist. Until he spoke to-night I wondered how he contrived to get returned for a city which I conceived to be rooted in a creed of a different kind. After I had listened to his speech I felt that he at least had shown how it was possible to be permeated by the doctrine of governing Ireland according to Irish ideas. I congratulate him upon his brilliant speech, and I hope we shall have many more such interventions in this debate.
There is one thing in the course of this debate which I confess has struck me with astonishment, and I wish to refer to it because I think it has an important bearing upon the form the reference to the Royal Commission must assume. The motion before the House affirms two propositions which are distinct. The second one, important as it is, is the grievance which the Irish Catholic population are suffering under the existing system of education. The earlier part of the motion affirms a proposition which no speaker deems it worth while to deal with, and that is that the provision of education of the university type in Ireland is wholly inadequate. Is that a proposition which anybody in this House can controvert? I am not an Irish representative, but I have followed this question with keen interest, and I have studied these matters in Ulster and Belfast and upon the spot, and nothing has struck me so much as the total inadequacy of the speeches of the representatives of Ulster to represent the real grievance. The right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench below the gangway addressed this House as if there was really no question except one between Catholics and those who thought Catholic demands ought not to be granted. The right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, who spoke earlier in the debate, took exactly the same line. They ask, What is the justification for this motion? They do not seem to be aware of what the position of Ireland is in this respect as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Ireland has one single teaching university. It has colleges, but for every one college it has got you can point to three in this country. Ireland has one teaching university for a population of
5,000,000, whereas Scotland, with the same population, has four,
1004
England has seven, and Germany, with a population of 50,000,000, has twenty-two, besides almost innumerable technical schools of university rank. At the present moment Queen's College, Belfast, is making an effort to raise money to put itself in an adequate position, the funds with which it is endowed being totally inadequate. Thus the only college of the kind in the middle, of a great commercial city finds itself in such a position that it is not able to carry out its functions efficiently. The success of the industries of large cities depend upon the application of skill, knowledge, and of science. Any of the small insignificant German towns would put Belfast in the shade in this respect. Not long ago, through the courtesy of the authorities, I made a study of the technical institution at Berlin. This institution, which ought to have something corresponding to it in the Queen's College, Belfast, gives instruction in shipbuilding, in the application of chemistry to various industries, and in many sciences, and sends out 2,000 students annually, whom employers are glad to secure, and to the ablest of whom they give premiums for their inventions. It is a scandal that the industrial industries of the north of Ireland have not instruction of this type. A Royal Commission is to be appointed, and I share the misgivings of the hon. Member for East Mayo as to the utility of this. It is no new question. Sixty years ago Sir Robert Peel took the matter in hand and founded the Queen's colleges, and there have been innumerable inquiries and discussions since. I should have thought that a Government with a powerful majority could have offered something less jejune than a Royal Commission.: It is not long ago since the First Lord of the Treasury expressed his own opinion upon this question in an admirable letter, in which he vindicated the claims of Ireland with great courage. He put forward a scheme for two new universities, one for the north, in Belfast, and another for the south, in Dublin, which might form the basis for the general principles. Why not first lay down the general principles, and then appoint a statutory Commission to give effect to them, as was done in the case of the London University? It was for the Government to determine the prinicples.
Assuming that this Commission is

1005
going to be an accomplished fact, it is important that we should realise what the position in Ireland at this moment really is. There are at present three colleges—one in Galway, one in Cork, and one in Belfast—having an endowment of about £10,000 a year each. Galway educates a little over 100 students, Cork 200, and Belfast about 400, although Belfast used to educate more. The case of Belfast has been grossly neglected in this debate. I wish to emphasise the fact that the grievance which the House is invited to remedy is a Protestant grievance as much as a Catholic grievance. The Catholics constitute the majority, but you cannot leave out of account the important Protestant grievance. What is the position of Queen's College, Belfast? Until the year 1880 these three colleges constituted what is known as the Queen's
University, which examined students and gave degrees to them. In 1880 the administration of Lord Beacons-field took a very remarkable step. To begin with, it abolished the Queen's University, and constituted the Royal University as a mere examining board. But in the next place, while professing to do this, and this only, it founded a number of Fellowships of £400 a year apiece, with the intention that a large number of them should be assigned to the Roman Catholic University College in Dublin. That was a Jesuit institution, and by this step Catholic endowment was brought about through a back door With regard to the Jesuit Institution, he had seen something of its work, which would do credit to some much better-endowed institutions. It has a substantial endowment, and the income goes into the common fund. But it has got something more. It has a large influence in regard to the examination of the Royal Irish University. Its teachers are, in many eases, examiners. I hear from all quarters that the Queen's College students feel the injustice of this, and the disadvantage at which they are placed as compared with the students of the University College in competing in the examinations of the Royal Irish University. The result is that in Belfast there is a very real grievance felt in the advantage which the Jesuit College possesses over the colleges in other parts of Ireland. In that condition of things, what is the prospect which the Government has to face? The plan of
1006
the First Lord of the Treasury seems to me to be an admirable one. He proposed to constitute two universities, one for the north and the other for the south of Ireland. They were to take the place of the Royal Irish University, and they were to be teaching universities just as much as the London University, which includes King's and University Colleges. The new university in the north was to have its seat in Belfast, and would take in as colleges, not only the Queen's College, but probably the Magee College in Londonderry, and some of the teachers of the training college at Belfast. In the south the university was to have its seat in Dublin, and would have embraced certain of the teaching bodies in the south of Ireland. That was an intelligible policy, and why was it objected to? It was objected to upon the ground that inevitably the government of the university in the north would become in the main Protestant, while that in Dublin would become Catholic. I think that was very likely to be so. You cannot avoid it in a country where denominationalism permeates every institution. In Ireland undenominational education means the equal treatment of all denominations, and nothing more.
When people like myself have to choose between no education at all and education which is denominational, I for my part much prefer that there should be denominational education—as little denominational as possible—but education I must have of some kind. It is idle for people to come here and ask, Why cannot Catholics go to Protestant colleges, or to colleges with no religious features about them? The answer is that Catholics will not go, and I do not see why they should be punished for refusing. The House is dealing with a country where four-fifths of the people are Catholics, and how is it possible to set their tenets at naught? Distinguished members of the Catholic Church in Ireland have told me that they do not ask for an atmosphere in which the teaching should be directly Catholic, but for this as a minimum—an atmosphere into which they could send their sons and daughters with some certainty that they would not be exposed to influences which would undermine their Catholic faith; they would rather have influences that were Anglican, Baptist, or Plymouth

1007
Brother than the influence of Agnosticism. You may agree or disagree, but it is a perfectly intelligible proposition. When you go to the North you find an equal demand on the part of the great Presbyterian organisations which exist there. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has taken an active part in this matter, and it has sent forth resolutions from time to time absolutely condemning the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. MACARTNEY: The hon. Gentleman should quote them.
MR. HALDANE: I have read half a score of them, pointing out that the existing university education is absolutely unsatisfactory.
MR. MACARTNEY: I never said it was satisfactory. I was arguing against that particular fallacy.
MR. HALDANE: Now at last the right hon. Gentleman stands forth as a repentant sinner. The important point is that education of a university type, for Protestants and Catholics alike, is, so far as Ireland is concerned, totally unsatisfactory. There has been before the country for some time past a definite and perfectly clear view of what the situation is from the university point of view in Ireland. You have also to recognise that there has been a proposition put forward of a perfectly specific and definite order for remedying the difficulties existing there. I have seen no reason to doubt that by far the best scheme is that which, to his credit, will ever be associated with the name of the First Lord of the Treasury. I regret that the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman in the Government do not show the same courage that he showed. With a majority of 140 on a matter which has been thought out and debated they thought it necessary to appoint a Royal Commission! This is not the way to get anything done, and I do not think anything will come of a Royal Commission. Apparently the Government regard Trinity College as like the Ark of the Covenant—that he who laid a hand upon it would surely perish. There is a real and substantial grievance to be dealt with, and it must be dealt with according to Irish ideas, and not according to British prejudices.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Every Member of the House who was a Member of it in the last Parliament is aware that I have on several occasions had to address speeches to it on the important subject before us now; and my views, which are personal views, and which do not commit my colleagues, as they were never intended to commit my colleagues, have so often been laid before this Assembly that I do not think it necessary or desirable to attempt to traverse the whole ground or cover all the issues which are raised by the resolution on the Paper. I am rather struck by the fact that but few English or Scottish Members have risen to oppose the motion. I do not wish to emphasise that fact, or to suggest for an instant that it indicates that there is anything like unanimity or general approval on either side of the House with regard to the motion. But I do think it indicates the fact that it is not very easy to argue that the needs of Irish education—for that is the fundamental point which we have to consider—are not of a kind which require the intervention of this House, or some further assistance than this House has yet been able to give. Do not let it be understood that I underrate the natural reluctance and objection which an Assembly in the main Protestant may feel towards the proposals which I or others have from time to time recommended for solving this problem. I do not underrate those objections. They are natural, and they suggest themselves without difficulty to the electors of English and Scottish constituencies. And yet I am persuaded that they are objections which have in them no real weight or substance. My right hon. friend the Member for South Antrim quoted a statement of mine which I confess I had forgotten, but which I am quite ready to acknowledge if he fathers it upon me, that I am a person of bigoted Protestant tendencies; and he doubted whether the bigotry or, at any rate, the quality of my Protestantism was not open to some serious question. Let us just consider that point. My right hon. friend and those who think with him have two objections to a scheme for giving further facilities for the higher education of Roman Catholics in Ireland. The first is a political objection, the second is an

1009
educational objection. Now, the political objection is that the Roman Catholic Church, as its history tells us, in Ireland and elsewhere, has not only been a great religious organisation, but also a great religious organisation which has intervened very powerfully in politics in a manner in which my right hon. friend and I agree, in many cases at all events, in deeply deploring. Granted that—I am speaking in the character of the bigoted Protestant of my right hon. friend—how is the proposal of giving higher education to Roman Catholics in Ireland likely to increase the political power of the Roman Catholic Church regarded not as a religious but as a political organisation? For the life of me I am unable to see it. My right hon. friend the Member for North Armagh quoted to-night a sentence of Mr. Gladstone's, written, I think, in 1874, in which he said that the
Irish priest was the master of the Irish people, that the Irish bishop was the master of the Irish priest, and that the Pope was the master of all three. If that be the present condition of the Irish people—and that is my right hon. friend's hypothesis—how is that position made worse by educating the Irish people?
MR. MACARTNEY: My right hon. friend will admit that there is no university in Ireland to which the Roman Catholic laity can go except to Trinity College, Dublin. If a new university is created it would be under the authority of the Pope and the laity would be forced to go there under the authority of the bishops.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a very argumentative interruption; but let us assume with him that the five per cent. of the Roman Catholics among the Trinity College students cease to go to Trinity College in future and go to some other college with equal liberality of statute as Trinity College. I want to ask him what difference that would make as to the control of the Irish priests over the Irish people, the Irish bishop over the Irish priest, and the Pope over all? I confess it seems to me almost inconceivable that any one should seriously suppose that the grip of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical organisation on the Irish people should be politically increased by the formation of such a university as is contemplated here.
1010
I go from the political to the educational objection. I admit that the educational objection is one which naturally appeals to the Protestant mind. What is that objection? The objection is this, and I hope that no Roman Catholic in this House will object to my stating it as it appeals to me, at all events. I believe it to be the fact that in many universities on the Continent, and perhaps elsewhere, the bases of education which have been under entirely Roman Catholic control have not shown that broad spirit of free investigation which we regard as one of the highest qualifications, one of the highest attributes of a modern university. Very well, let us assume that that is true, and my own view is that in some cases it has been true; but what then? Is it I not better that you should have a university of some kind in which education in science, in languages, in literature, in classics, in ancient history should be taught, than that you should have no I university? In these subjects there can be no clerical control. A Jesuit teaching Latin and Greek, a Jesuit teaching mathematics—[Ministerial cries of "History"]—a Jesuit teaching ancient history—(HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.) I am putting it from an extreme point of view—what can he do to pollute the pure spring of education He can do nothing. Well, is it not better from an educational point of view, supposing that these sinister ecclesiastical influences were to have all the effect which my light hon. friend attributes to them, at all events that there should be some place where our Irish fellow-countrymen should learn these great elements of a liberal education, than that they should have no place at all? Mark you, I am putting it at the worst. I am assuming, what I have no right to assume, that some portions of modern science would not be taught with that freedom of investigation which we all desire. I mentioned, I think, in the topics that could not be perverted, classics, ancient history, mathematics; I might add all the physical sciences. Yes, all the physical sciences. They cannot be touched by clerical influence. All the secular arts—they cannot be touched by clerical influence. Are they nothing? And because my right hon. friend supposes that the views of modern history—modern religious history especially—

1011
and of modern philosophy may possibly be perverted by clerical influence, are we, on that account to refuse to the great majority of the Irish people the blessings of the higher education in those great subjects which we all admit can be equally well taught, and are equally well taught, in every university where competent teachers are allowed? I therefore venture to say that from the extreme Protestant point of view neither the political danger nor the educational danger, taken at their extreme limits, are of a kind which ought to induce this Assembly, which is in the main a Protestant Assembly, to refuse to the Irish people those great benefits of higher education which are so freely given to Scotchmen and to Englishmen.
But, while I take that view, I confess that, speaking as a bigoted Protestant, I cannot follow my right hon. and gallant friend in the view he has expressed about Trinity College, Dublin. My right hon. and gallant friend said he would welcome Trinity College, Dublin, being flooded by Roman Catholic students from all parts of Ireland. I confess my Protestantism, my liberality, does not go that length. I look at the history of Trinity College. Dublin. I see it has from the very beginning of its history been associated with Protestantism. I see that now, although it is perfectly true, as my right hon. friend near me has pointed out, that it has thrown open the door to every form of opinion, and interposes no obstacle in the way of any student, whatever his religious or irreligious opinions may be, still the prevailing atmosphere of that university is Protestant. Frankly, I rejoice at it. I am glad that in a country where the great mass of the population are not Protestant there should be this great historical place of education, Protestant by tradition, Protestant in fact, and I hope it will remain Protestant in fact, and that through all time Trinity College will be a place where a Protestant parent may send his son with the certainty that he will find in it, not, indeed, bigoted priests, not, indeed, narrow views, not any spirit of proselytism abroad, but those principles of intellectual freedom which we Protestants associate with university education. My right hon. and gallant friend differs from me. He would like to see the majority of the students
1012
Roman Catholic. He would like to see, as a consequence, the provost Roman Catholic. [Cries of "No."] All these results follow logically, directly, and immediately from the view which my right hon. and gallant friend has presented to us. I hope I am not incapable of breadth of view, but my breadth of view does not lead me into those illimitable speculations of my right hon. and gallant friend. I hear him express some dissent; where is my logic at fault?
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I said nothing, Sir.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. and gallant friend gave an inarticulate groan, but whether it was from any defect in the reasoning I presented or not I cannot say. In any case, my view is that, however regrettable it may be, you will not see the needs of Irish education satisfied unless you follow in the case of the higher and university education of Ireland the course which you have been driven, whether you like it or not, to take in the case of primary and of secondary education. I regret it, but the man who does not accept the facts which are thrust before his eyes by every incident alike in contemporary and past history surely is guilty of deliberate blindness.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddington called the attention of the blouse to what is, or what ought to be, our leading consideration on this occasion. Has Ireland, or has it not, an adequate practical machinery for the higher education of the youth of the country? I say it is behind England, Scotland, France, Germany, and America in that respect. Do you think it an adequate way of dealing with the situation to say, "If the Irish only knew their own business they would send their sons to Trinity College, Dublin." Well, they do not send their sons to Trinity College, Dublin, and the result is that the Roman Catholics of Ireland do not have those educational advantages which we desire for them. But have all Protestants in Ireland those advantages? When I was Chief Secretary for Ireland, a good many years ago, the representatives of the Belfast Queen's College came to me more than once and earnestly pressed upon me the obvious necessity of doing something considerable for that institution. I thought their case was unanswerable;

1013
but I was obliged to tell them that the idea of giving sums of public money to the Queen's College, Belfast, which is, broadly speaking, a Presbyterian college—[Several HON, MEMBERS: No!]—well, which in the main is a Presbyterian college—[Several HON. MEMBERS. No!]—in order to equip it in the manner it ought to be equipped, was entirely illusory and absolutely impossible; that no Government would take it up, that no practical statesman would look at it, until an attempt was made to put higher education in Ireland upon a rational basis; and from that day to this Protestant education in Belfast—the great manufacturing centre of Ireland, which has to compete with England. Germany, Prance, and America—is starved because we will not consent to deal in a broad spirit with this question. I earnestly press upon the House, irrespective of those religious prejudices which stand like a wall in the way of progress, to consider whether it is decent or tolerable that we should continue to starve the education, not only of the Roman Catholics, but of the Protestants in the north of Ireland, on account of views and feelings which, though they have their justification, and are natural, must on analysis vanish before the light of higher wisdom.
I am afraid I have plunged again into the broad merits of the controversy on which I have dwelt almost too often, but I will content myself now with saying a word or two about the Commission. The hon. and learned Member for Haddington complained that the Government had consented to the Royal Commission. He said we knew all about the question, that we were a strong Government, and that, therefore, we ought to have taken the matter in hand and dealt with it. To that I would point out, in the first place, that the Commission was not our suggestion. It was suggested by the Royal University of Ireland, who, irrespective of creed, unanimously begged us to appoint a Commission to investigate their own shortcomings—I do not use the word in a critical sense, but their own failure to carry out the work for which they were created. When a great body like that, representing men of all religious opinions, came forward, and said, "We have tailed to do what we were constituted to do, we cannot do it under our authorisation, and we ask you to appoint a Commission
1014
to investigate the subject of university education in Ireland," was it possible for any responsible Government to refuse such a request? It was not possible. That alone was an adequate justification for the course which the Government have pursued. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked of this being a question to be taken up by the Government as a Government question. He knows very well that, by a tradition now existing for at least three or four generations, this is one of those questions which, in the nature of the case, are open questions. Then do not ask the Government as a Government to take it up, for that clearly is impossible. If the hon. and learned Member were Leader of a Government would he regard it as otherwise? I understand the two Front Benches are agreed as to that. I should say there is even less sympathy upon that bench than upon this. It is necessary in these circumstances that we should have the fullest information on the subject, and I trust that when the Commission reports—which I do not think will be very long—the result will be that public opinion in the country will render it perfectly possible for this House to deal practically with the problem which I have been endeavouring to elucidate.
That is all I have to say on the merits of the question. I will just say one word on the Vote which is to be given to-night if the Amendment is carried to a division. The original motion before the House is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, to which an Amendment has been moved dealing with the question of Irish University education. I may be permitted to say, as there may be some Members in the House not quite familiar with its forms, that, according to the universal practice, it is necessary for all those who desire to support the Government to vote for the original motion, and of course everybody on this bench, including myself, will take that view, and all who desire to support the Government will follow their example. What will be the result? The result of that will be that a division, if it is forced, will in no sense represent the views of the House on this question. Many gentlemen on this side of the House who agree entirely with me must go into the lobby against the Amendment, and that being so I would venture to

1015
suggest to the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment that he would probably serve the cause he has at heart by not enforcing a division, by contenting himself with the discussion and with the general expression of the feelings of the House, which are much better indicated by the speeches which have been delivered than they can possibly be by a vote given on the Amendment. In these circumstances I trust the hon. Gentleman will not press the motion to a division. If he does, I am sorry to say I shall have to vote against him.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I trust the House will permit me in the few moments which still remain to express very briefly some views upon this question. I desire to acknowledge in the fullest way the sympathetic tone in which the Leader of the House has spoken. This is not the first time he has spoken on this subject with sympathy, and expressed a desire to settle the question; but I must give expression to the feeling which is strong in my breast, and which must be strong in the breasts of all Irishmen who have followed this question for some years, and that is the feeling of how difficult it is to distinguish between the action of the right hon. Gentleman as an individual and his action as the representative of the Government. As an individual I admit in the fullest way the sympathy and support which he has given for many years past to this question, but I dispute altogether the proposition he has laid before the House to-night, that this is to be regarded as the one question of great and paramount importance which is to be left an open question to all Governments. What does he mean? When has it become the rule or the fashion that the Irish University question should be an open question with Governments? It was not so twenty or thirty years ago. I know not by what right he asserts that to-day it is a question upon which Members of various Governments may fairly be allowed to differ. I have not time to enter upon an elaborate argument, but I desire to put one argument before the House, viz., that there is no question affecting Ireland the history of which is such a conclusive argument in favour of Home Rule as this question of University Education. Here
1016
is a grievance affecting an overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, and affecting them in the most intimate way, admitted to be a grievance for the last thirty years from time to time by statesmen of different parties. For the last thirty years this has been admitted to be a grievance injuriously affecting the whole wellbeing of the Irish nation, and yet generation after generation of young boys have been allowed to grow up into manhood without the advantage of university education. There never was a question upon which Government pledges, given in all solemnity to Ireland, were so flagrantly broken. In 1878 Lord Cairns, representing the Conservative party in the House of Lords, in introducing the Intermediate Education Act, said—
"This Bill is the necessary preliminary to a great measure dealing with higher education, the need for which is acknowledged by all political parties. This important Bill is the building of the walls of which a University Bill will be the roof."
In 1885, when the Conservative party were again in office, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then the Leader of the House, gave a specific pledge. It was not then the doctrine of the Conservative party that this was an open question. Upon that occasion the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on behalf of the Government, gave an absolute pledge on this question. He said—
"They would continue to regard this question with hope, with the wish to do something to make University education more general and widespread in Ireland; and, should it be their lot to be in office next session, with the determination to make some practical proposal that would deal in a satisfactory way with this important matter."
I submit that that was a specific pledge on behalf of the Government. The Conservative Government were in office the next year, and from that day to this, with the exception of the period from 1892 to 1895, they held the reins of office, and yet this pledge has never been redeemed. I respectfully say to the Leader of the House, when he declares to-night that he speaks only as an individual and not as the representative of the Government, that in 1889, when he spoke in this House, he gave an absolute pledge on behalf of this Government. He said, speaking on behalf of the Government—
"That the Government had no alternative but to try and devise a scheme by which the

1017
wants of the Catholics of Ireland would be met,"
and when pressed by Mr. Parnell on behalf of the Irish Members for an even more definite pledge, he said—
"There is no possibility of dealing with the question except by a Bill, and I cannot give a pledge at this moment of the exact order in which the various questions will be dealt with by the Government next session."
I say with all respect that was a specific pledge, given in 1889, by the present Leader of the House, not as an individual, but as the representative of the Government. But from that day to this the pledge has remained unfulfilled.
It cannot be said that the Government has been impeded in this matter by the want of co-operation on the part of the representatives of the Catholic people of Ireland, for in, 1889 the present Leader of the House, in a speech delivered in Scotland, laid down the conditions on which the Government would deal with this question. Those conditions were specifically accepted by the Catholic hierarchy and the Nationalist Members of Parliament. Those conditions were, first, that there was to be no Catholic university in the sense of being so exclusively Catholic as to shut out people of other denominations; second, that no State aid was to be given for a theological chair; and third, that there should be a conscience clause. All those conditions were accepted. They were formally accepted by a declaration of the Catholic hierarchy, and yet no progress has been made with the question since then. I repeat that the whole history of this question is one of broken pledges given by the Government to Ireland, and I say that if the case for Home Rule stood alone on this question of university education, there would be a conclusive case made out on behalf of remitting to the Irish people the management of their own affairs. Of all the grievances affecting Ireland this is the most practical. The idea that this question affects only the richer and higher classes is an absurdity. It affects every class in the community in Ireland. To give an instance. Only the other day I was making inquiries in Dublin as to the working of the new Department of Agriculture. What was the information
1018
I obtained? That department is engaged in endeavouring to create schools of science and technical education in various parts of the country; but I was informed that the work is absolutely blocked; and why? They have found it almost impossible to get teachers for these schools in Ireland. The result will be that these schools will be permanently blocked, or else it will be necessary for the department to bring over teachers from England and Scotland. I think it would be impossible to prove in a more conclusive way the injury done to Ireland by the deprivation of the advantages of higher education.
In listening to some of the speeches to-night it struck me that there is still some apprehension as to what exactly the Catholics of Ireland are asking for in this matter. We are asking simply for equality. Allusion has been made to Dublin University by many speakers. That university was founded with the avowed object of planting the Protestant religion in Ireland. For over two hundred years that university was exclusively Protestant, and it is Protestant to-day in this respect, that the entire of its governing body is Protestant; its teaching body is Protestant; and it has a divinity school and a chapel within its walls with Protestant services. Its traditions, its spirit, and its atmosphere are all admittedly Protestant. It is unnecessary to labour that point. Trinity College is proud of its Protestant traditions, and I sympathise to a large extent with the
views of the First Lord of the Treasury on that point. I remember when the Test Abolition Act was passed the Irish Catholic Members protested against a policy of secularising Trinity College. We Irish Catholics do not desire to see Trinity College divested of its Protestant atmosphere. We far prefer that it should be a Protestant institution rather than that all religion should be banished from it, and that it should be lowered to the level of the godless colleges in Cork, Belfast, and Galway. All we ask for is that the Catholics of Ireland, the great bulk of the population, should receive an equality of treatment, and should have a university as Catholic in character as Trinity College is Protestant.

1019
And, speaking of Ireland generally, let me say there is a large amount of agreement in that country on this question. The right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh does not represent the largest or most important section of Protestant opinion in this matter. Trinity College itself has spoken in no uncertain voice, and has declared by its most distinguished professors, and to-night by one of the Members representing it in this House, that it is not opposed to a university for the Catholics of Ireland; and I say nothing is easier for the Government of the day than to propose a scheme carrying out the views which have the support of so large a number of the leading Protestants of Ireland. They have not, however, done so. They have instead proposed a Royal Commission, and on that question I desire to associate myself to the full with the remarks made by the hon. Member for East Mayo. We did not ask for this Commission. We were not consulted about the appointment of this Commission. I may say that if we had been consulted about it—speaking for myself—we would not have approved of it. I regard this Commission as an evasion of the solemn pledges of the Government, as an evasion of a plain duty, and as an attempt to postpone legislation because the Government fears to introduce a Bill. It is not the Irish opinion that on this great question, which you admit is a grievance, prevents you introducing legislation, but opinion in England. And this constitutes the strongest argument conceivable in favour of Home Rule. I have not time to deal with the question in reference to this Commission beyond saying that although an inquiry into the emoluments and management of Trinity College is to be excluded from the purview of this Commission, at the same time it will be impossible for any Commission to conduct this inquiry into university education in Ireland without taking Trinity College into account. There it is, with all its emoluments and all its educational advantages for the Protestants, and in considering how the claims of the Catholics can be fairly met this Commission will be forced to take that college as it stands, and our claim will be that they shall afford to the Catholic people of Ireland at least as high
1020
facilities and as good an educational medium as Trinity College for the benefit of Protestants. My opinion about the Commission—and I say it perfectly boldly and frankly—is that nothing will come of it. I hope the contrary will prove the truth. At the same time I would be sorry to take any responsibility in wrecking this Commission, and I do not want to do or say anything to discredit it in advance.
This brings me to the question of what advice I can give to my hon. friend with reference to taking a division. Of course I recognise the truth of what the First Lord of the Treasury has said. No division on this question to-night can fairly or honestly represent the opinion of the House, but there is something weighing on my mind above and beyond that. I believe a division taken on this question to-night, even it be an unreal majority—even if there is a large majority against the Amendment of my hon. friend—will be a discrediting beforehand of the work of the Commission. Therefore, under these circumstances I cannot advise my hon. friend to proceed to a division. My advice to him is to rest content with the debate that has taken place and with the position which we have taken. We do not take any responsibility in regard to this Commission. We do not wish to thwart or impede this Commission. We say, "Go on with your inquiry; if it leads to nothing, as most probably it will, the responsibility will not rest upon us; it will rest on you." Our hands will be untied; we will be free, as representing the laity of Ireland, to take what action we think fit in proposing a remedy, quite irrespective of any influences that are at work. For these reasons I would advise my hon. friend to withdraw his motion.
MR. ROCHEsaid that in deference to the opinion of his hon. friend the leader of his Party, and in response to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, he would withdraw the Amendment.
Objection being taken—
MR. T. M. HEALY: On a point of order, if the Amendment is not to be withdrawn—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. T. M. HEALY: I submit that the closure not having been moved any hon. Member has a right to address the Chair, even though midnight is striking—
It being midnight, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the business, whereupon—
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed that the Question be now put.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 147. (Division List No. 134.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawrence, William F.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Duke, Henry Edward

Lawson, John Grant

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Durning, Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Faber, George Denison

Leveson-Gower, Fredk, N. S.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Arrol, Sir William

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Long, Rt Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Finch, George H.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fison, Frederick William

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

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

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Macdona, John Cumming

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Flower, Ernest

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Forster, Henry William

Maconochie, A. W.

Banbury, Frederick George

Garfit, William

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

Bartley, George C. T.

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

M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

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

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W.

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

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

Majendie, James A. H.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Malcolm, Ian

Bond, Edward

Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'ml'ts

Manners, Lord Cecil

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Melville, Beresford V.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Middlemore, John T.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Milward, Col. Victor

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Graham, Henry Robert

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Bull, William James

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Montagu, C. (Huntingdon)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Butcher, John George

Grenfell, William Henry

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gretton, John

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morrison, James Archibald

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Hain, Edward

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x

Moss, Samuel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Mount, William Arthur]

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Channing, Francis A listen

Haslett, Sir James Homer

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hay, Hon. (Maude George

Nicholson, William Graham

Chapman, Edward

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Charrington, Spencer

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Helder, Augustus

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Higgin bottom, S. W.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Horner, Frederick William

Penn, John

Colston, Chas, E. H. Athole

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Perks, Robert William

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Purvis, Robert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne

Cranborne, Viscount

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Cust, Henry John C.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Renwick, George

Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S Geo.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Keswick, William

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Ropner, Col. Robert

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Bound, James

Doughty, George

Law, Andrew Bonar

Rutherford, John

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Tollemache, Henry James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Valentia, Viscount

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Walker, Col. William Hall

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

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wylie, Alexander

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Warde, Col. C. E.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

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

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

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Spear, John Ward

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

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Stock, James Henry

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Willox, Sir John Archibald

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

Wills, Sir Frederick

NOES.

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

Hammond, John

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Ambrose, Robert

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harwood, George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Dowd, John

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Bell, Richard

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Black, Alexander William

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Mara, James

Boland, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boyle, James

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

O'Shee, James John

Brigg, John

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Partington, Oswald

Burke, E. Haviland-

Horniman, Frederick John

Paulton, James Mellor

Caine, William Sproston

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Caldwell, James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Priestley, Arthur

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Rea, Russell

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Reckitt, Harold James

Bell, Richard

Jordan, Jeremiah

Reddy, M.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Clancy, John Joseph

Kearley, Hudson E.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cogan, Denis J.

Kennedy, Patrick James

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Colville, John

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Rickett, J. Compton

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Labouchere, Henry

Rigg, Richard

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lambert, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Crean, Eugene

Langley, Batty

Roche, John

Cremer, William Randal

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cullinan, J.

Leamy, Edmund

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Daly, James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

Delany, William

Leng, Sir John

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Levy, Maurice

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Dillon, John

Lough, Thomas

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Doogan, P. C.

Lundon, W.

Soares, Ernest J.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants

Duffy, William J.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stevenson, Francis S.

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Cann, James

Sullivan, Donal

Dunn, Sir William

M'Dermott, Patrick

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Edwards, Frank

M'Govern, T.

Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

Emmott, Alfred

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan N.

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Tomkinson, James

Field, William

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Tully, Jasper

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Markham, Arthur Basil

Ure, Alexander

Flynn, James Christopher

Minch, Matthew

Weir, James Galloway

Fuller, J. M. F.

Mooney, John J.

White, George (Norfolk)

Gilhooly, James

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

Murnaghan, George

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Murphy, J.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Grant, Corrie

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Norman, Henry

Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

MR. BALFOURclaimed, "That the Main Question he, now put."
Main Question put accordingly.
The House divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 138. (Division List No. 135.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Fison, Frederick William

Malcolm, Ian

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Manners, Lord Cecil

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

Markham, Arthur Basil

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Flower, Ernest

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Foster, Henry William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Garfit, William

Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

Milward, Col. Victor

Arrol, Sir William

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Bain, Col. James Robert

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

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

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Morrison, James Archibald

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mount, William Arthur

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Graham, Henry Robert

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Ban bury, Frederick George

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Bartley, George C T.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Grenfell, William Henry

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

Gretton, John

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hain, Edward

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens-

Bond, Edward

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'ry

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Brigg, John

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Paulton, James Mellor

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pemberton, John S. G.

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Penn, John

Bull, William James

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bullard, Sir Harry

Heath, J. (Staffords., N.W.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Butcher, John George

Helder, Augustus

Purvis, Robert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

Higginbottom, S. W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Horner, Frederick William

Renwick, George

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversh.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hozier, Hn. Jas. Henry Cecil

Round, James

Chapman, Edward

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rutherford, John

Charrington, Spencer

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Kenyon, Hn. Geo T. (Denbigh

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Cohen, Benjamin L.

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Keswick, William

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Colston, Charles Edw. H. A.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Seton-Karr, Henry

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Law, Andrew Bonar

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lawrence, William F.

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

Cranborne, Viscount

Lawson, John Grant

Spear, John Ward

Cubitt, Hon. Hemy

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Cust, Henry John C.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stock, James Henry

Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'inlets, S Geo.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Thornton, Percy M.

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Tollemache, Henry James

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Doughty, George

Lowther, Rt Hn. W (Cum. Penr.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Valentia, Viscount

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Walker, Col. William Hall

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Dske, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Warde, Col. C. E.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Macdona, John Cumming

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Faber, George Denison

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Maconochie, A. W.

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

M'Calmont, Cl. H. L. B. (Cambs

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

Finch, George H.

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Wills, Sir Frederick

Fisher, William Hayes

Majendie, James A. H.

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

1026

1027

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Wortley, Rn. Hon. C. P. B Stuart-

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wylie, Alexander

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

Harwood, George

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Ambrose, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Mara, James

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bell, Richard

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Shee, James John

Boland, John

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Perks, Robert William

Boyle, James

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burke, E. Haviland-

Horniman, Frederick John

Priestly, Arthur

Caine, William Sproston

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Rea, Russell

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace

Reckitt, Harold James

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Reddy, M.

Channing, Francis Allston

Jordan, Jeremiah

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Clancy, John Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cogan, Denis J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

Colville, John

Kennedy, Patrick James

Rickett, J. Compton

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lambert, George

Rigg, Richard

Craig, Robert Hunter

Langley, Batty

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Crean, Eugene

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roche, John

Cremer, William Randal

Leamy, Edmund

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cullinan, J.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Daly, James

Leng, Sir John

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Delany, William

Levy, Maurice

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lundon, W.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Dillon, John

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Soares, Ernest

Doogan, P. C.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Norh'nts

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Cann, James

Stevenson, Francis S.

Duffy, William J.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Sullivan, Donal

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Govern, T.

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Dunn, Sir William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas, J A (Gl'morg'n, Gower)

Edwards, Frank

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.

Emmott, Alfred

Minch, Matthew

Tomkinson, James

Farrell, James Patrick

Mooney, John J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Field, William

Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

Tully, Jasper

Flynn, James Christopher

Moss, Samuel

Ure, Alexander

Fuller, J. M. F.

Murnaghan, George

Weir, James Galloway

Gilhooly, James

Murphy, J.

White, George (Norfolk)

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Grant, Corrie

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Grey, Sir Edw. (Berwick)

Norman, Henry

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

Griffith, Ellis J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

G'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.

Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Hammond, John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1901–2.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

WAYS AND MEANS.
[19TH APRIL.]
Resolution reported.

WAYS AND MEANS.

  LOAN.
  "That, towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and two, sums not exceeding sixty million pounds may be raised by all or any of the following methods:—

  (a) by means of the creation of two and three-quarter per cent. Consolidated Stock within the meaning of the National Debt Conversion Act,
  1888; or

  (b) by means of the issue of further War Stock or War Bonds under the War Loan Act, 1900; or

  1029

  (c) by means of the issue of Treasury Bills; or

  (d) by means of the issue of Exchequer Bonds;

  and that the principal of, and interest on, any sum so raised be charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid it would be in the recollection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House that the other night the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to the House to allow the resolution to go through, on the ground that it would be a serious inconvenience to have the discussion prolonged. Speaking on behalf of the Irish Members, he agreed then that the right hon. Gentleman should get the resolution, stating, of course, that there would be an opportunity for discussion on Report. He felt sure that under the circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not persist with the Report that night. He had no desire to obstruct business, or to prolong discussion on this matter, but it was a clear understanding that there would be an opportunity for discussion on
  Report.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,)said he did not wish to press the matter further that night.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the statement that he would not force the matter on that night.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow at Two of the clock.

  ARMY ANNUAL BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4:—
  SIR CHARLES DILKE*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean) moved an Amendment on line 9 in order to ascertain from the Government whether the Bill applied to "all" courts of inquiry. The authorities
  1030
  on this subject were very much divided. A great number of courts of inquiry had been held during the present war in South Africa which were not held subject to the rules laid down in the rules of procedure. If the Government denied that, then they would know where they were, and they would come to the discussion of the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member for Taunton had on the Paper with a clear opinion of what it was they were going to discuss.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 9, to leave out the word 'all.'"—Sir Charles Dilke.
  Question proposed, "That the word" 'all' stand part of the question."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said he could not accept the Amendment, because it was exactly contrary to the intention of the clause. The intention of the clause was to give power in certain cases to courts of inquiry held under Clause 70 of the Army Act to administer oaths in order to make the inquiry more formal. It was not intended to affect courts not held under Clause
  70.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman in the first part of his speech to imply—although he did not distinctly state it—that he took the view which he (Sir Charles) had put before the House, namely, that this change in the law would not apply to all courts of inquiry. But in the last words of his speech the right hon. Gentleman seemed to go back on that, because he said that in South Africa some persons had been involved who had not been heard, but had been reported on by courts of inquiry as though these had been formal courts. If the Amendments were not to apply to all courts of inquiry he would withdraw his word
  "all," which was moved in order to elicict this fact.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the clause took one's breath away. He had understood that the evidence was in all cases to be taken on oath, but it seemed to read that evidence on oath could only be taken in one, the first, class of courts mentioned in the clause. Officers ought to have some better and clearer guidance.
  MR. ASQUITHthought the hon. Member for North Louth was

  1031
  right in his contention. Section 70 of the Army Act applied only to courts of inquiry constituted under that Act, and the proposed Amendment on Clause 4 would also be restricted to that class of courts of inquiry. He understood that the point raised by the right hon. the Member for Forest of Dean was that there were investigations which might not be courts of inquiry in the sense of the Act, but which were held under the general prerogative of the Crown as head of the Army, and the question was whether the proposed new rule that evidence might be taken on oath would apply to these courts.
  MR. BRODRICKwas understood to say that it would not.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid if the amendment to Clause 70 of the Army Act was only to apply to statutory courts, the evils against which his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton wished to protest would continue to exist. Having elicited the facts, he# asked leave to withdraw his amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that the rules of procedure actually carried the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Taunton.
  COLONEL WELBYsaid his object was to get the words inserted in the Act, and to add "or efficiency," which words were not in the rules of procedure. As a matter of fact, in courts of
  inquiry in South Africa the rules of procedure had been left on one side, and the reason given was that the word "character" did not involve an officer's military efficiency. Efficiency ought to be added, because efficiency was a very great portion of an officer's military character. His reason for inserting the words in the Act of Parliament was to make it beyond dispute that, whenever evidence was taken on oath, the officer should have an opportunity of being present, of cross-examining the witnesses, and of making his defence. He believed that courts of inquiry had been held in South Africa which had seriously affected officers and non-commissioned officers, who had been judged in their absence. Evidence taken on oath could be produced at a
  1032
  court-martial, and therefore it would be inevitable that the person incriminated would have an opportunity of being present at the proceedings, of cross-examining the witnesses, and stating his own defence. It was perfectly true that during a campaign it might be necessary to hold advisory courts to collect evidence, but that evidence could be collected in the ordinary way by a prerogative court, and what he wanted was that, in cases like the surrenders in South Africa, the persons implicated should have the right to be present at the courts of inquiry, and to cross-examine the witnesses, and that the evidence should be taken on oath.
  If evidence of that kind were to be given, he believed it would be the means of greatly increasing a serious defect in the organisation of the Army as compared with that of the Navy, namely, a want of responsibility in taking action against those who were inefficient in the field. He was sure that that could not be said of his right hon. friend, for he bad acted bravely in his position, and he admired him for it. But what was the practice of the Army as a whole? The practice was to avoid responsibility, and for a general to shield himself behind a court of inquiry. It would be very simple for a general if he wished to get rid of an officer, instead of taking the responsibility himself, to fall back on the proceedings of a court of inquiry taken upon oath and to say to the officer that that evidence was taken on oath, that there could be no doubt about it, and that, therefore, he must recommend that the officer be removed from his command. He believed that the great object of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was to deal with the cases of surrender which had occurred in South Africa, and to abolish the present system of first having a court of inquiry and then a court-martial, in favour of a system of one inquiry upon oath, which would finally decide how a surrender had been caused. Very great injustice might result. He did not think it was possible in all cases to assimilate the procedure in the Army to that in the Navy. In the Navy the commander of a ship was responsible, but a military commander might be tied by an order just received before a disaster. Military officers, therefore, could not be

  1033
  tried as naval officers invariably were. What he desired was that if the rule of collecting evidence on oath by courts of inquiry were to be enforced, then most decidedly the safeguards for the officers and men incriminated should be inserted in the Act of Parliament and not left to rules of procedure, which, although they had to be laid on the Table of the House, might be overlooked, and a change might creep in which the House did not desire. As an officer, he unhesitatingly said that the words he proposed should be inserted in the Act. If they were not he believed it would be far better to leave things as they were. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 11, after 'that purpose,' add 'provided that whenever any such inquiry affects the character or efficiency of an officer or soldier, full opportunity shall be afforded to the officer or soldier of being present throughout the inquiry, and of making any statement he may wish to make, and of cross-examining any witness whose evidence, in his opinion, affects his character or efficiency, and producing any witnesses in defence of his character or efficiency.'"—(Colonel Welby.)
  Question proposed, That those words be there inserted.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid he agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were hardly needed. In the rules of procedure it was laid down that courts of inquiry were to give no opinion as to the conduct of any officer or soldier. Why, then, was evidence to be taken on oath, when it was not to be admissible at any subsequent court? The court of inquiry had no judicial power, and was in strictness not a court at all. Why, therefore, have evidence upon oath? He would further point out that the officers forming a court of inquiry were not themselves sworn, whereas in the case of a court-martial the first thing that was done was to administer an oath to each officer composing the court to well and truly try the case. As far as he could understand it, a court of inquiry was merely an assemblage of persons directed by the commanding officer to collect evidence with respect to a transaction as to which he could not conveniently make inquiries himself. It
  1034
  seemed to him to be merely a preliminary inquiry to satisfy the commanding officer, who would decide, after having studied the evidence, whether there was a prima facie case against the officer concerned. He could not conceive why the right hon. Gentleman wished to insert the words, because the court was not a judicial court but merely a court, to collect facts.
  MR. BRODRICK: said that the court of inquiry would assemble not to give a verdict, but in order to provide the Commander-in-Chief with reliable information as to what had occurred, and experience showed that the more formal the evidence was made, by placing witnesses upon oath, the more certain would be the assurance of obtaining reliable information. His object was to make a court of inquiry a reality, and to make it reliable, not for the purpose of using the evidence as evidence before a court of law or a court-martial, but for the purpose of providing accurate information for the guidance of the Commander-in-Chief. He would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept his assurance that the rules of procedure would achieve the object be desired, and he was prepared to amend them by adding the words "or efficiency" as proposed, but he did not think it necessary that the Amendment should be inserted in the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had fully met the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He would, however, respectfully submit that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was really putting a soldier or an officer in a position of greater danger than an ordinary civilian when his character or conduct was challenged. All laws made in a time of panic were bad, and the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was meant to meet a particular grievance which had suddenly arisen, and which could not be considered as fairly as if it had arisen in the ordinary course. The right hon. Gentleman said he proposed to invest courts of inquiry with a solemnity which they otherwise would not have. That was the very vice of the clause. It should be remembered that an officer or a soldier was not empanelled before a

  1035
  court of inquiry. He neither got a verdict of acquittal nor was he adjudged guilty, yet his character was ripped up and torn to pieces, and he went blasted before a court-martial. He would ask the Government, was it fair as a result of the war to start a novel procedure and to subject a soldier or an officer to a position of difficulty and doubt to which an ordinary person was not subject? He did not think the proposal was an improvement, or that it should he considered in Committee after midnight. He thought it should be considered by a Select Committee, upon which Army experts should be represented. The only case in which evidence could be taken on oath behind the back of the accused was that of a deserter. Now, forsooth, the Government proposed to place; an officer or a general in command on a level with a deserter. That would be the effect of the clause. So far as he, was concerned, personally he had not the smallest interest in the matter except the constitutional interest one took in the trials of one's fellows. But he would beg of tin; Government to pause before they introduced such a fatal change. Let the officer have the option of a court-martial in the first place, and let not his character be blasted beforehand by a court of inquiry.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether it was the intention of the Government to discourage non-statutory courts or prerogative courts, and to substitute courts of inquiry on oath in their stead It was difficult to discuss the question as if the Committee had not certain cases in their minds; but when they were discussing what was to be done, they ought to consider whether in effect they were making a change which would in future guide such cases, or whether such cases would continue to be dealt with as in the past? The hon. and gallant gentleman referred to officers who would be affected in their absence, but in another part of his speech he showed that courts were in the habit of conducting proceedings in the absence of the officer concerned. That was because such courts were outside the section, and the Committee ought to understand that the proposal they were now discussing did not touch them at all. The case the hon. and gallant Gentleman
  1036
  had in his mind was the case of an officer who was affected by an inquiry into the conduct of another officer. In that inquiry all the things which the rules of procedure laid down should not be done were done. The Committee ought to know from the Government whether they proposed to substitute the procedure now under discussion for the ordinary procedure. The courts which were held for the collection of information for future use were not under the provisions of the law, or of the proposal by which they were now reforming them. The Secretary of State for War had adopted that view. He knew that high legal authorities held a contrary view. Undoubtedly many courts held during the present war have been outside the statutory courts, because they had done things which the statutory courts were forbidden to do. Surely the Committee ought to know whether it was the intention of the Government to supersede the existing procedure by the procedure now proposed.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid his right hon. friend assumed that the law only referred to what he called statutory courts. On reference to the Act of 1881, however, it would be seen that the rules of procedure dealt with all courts of inquiry. He was not aware of any statutory court of inquiry except that referred to in Section
  72. The heading of Rule 124 was as follows: "Regulations for Courts of Inquiry other than Courts of Inquiry held under Section 72." Therefore the Secretary of State for War, who among his many advantages had not the advantage of being a lawyer, would find that very grave doubt existed on the matter. His own opinion was that the Amendment would refer to all courts of inquiry. For his own part, he agreed that it was desirable to give solemnity to evidence by taking it on oath on all inquiries affecting character. His hon. friend the Member for North Louth did not agree with him, but the only question, if they were to have such courts of inquiry now, was whether the evidence was to be taken in a more solemn and formal manner than in the past. He thought it was better that the evidence should be solemnly and formally than

  1037
  taken without any formality at all. On the larger point, he was of opinion that the Amendment referred to more the statutory courts. He thought it would refer to all courts of inquiry such as the courts referred to in Rule 124.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said there seemed to be a general agreement that the Secretary of State for War had fully dealt with the Amendment before the Committee. The hon. Member for North Louth seemed to think that there might be some aspersion cast on an officer or soldier if the evidence were taken on oath, but he would remind the hon. Member that the character of an officer or a soldier was protected to the same extent as if the evidence had not been taken on oath, and it was from that point of view he# asked the Committee to accept the proposal. With reference to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs. Section 72 dealt with the case of soldiers absent without leave.
  MR. ASQUITH: thought it extremely desirable that the amendment of the law proposed by the Government should be made, whatever might be the scope of the inquiry. Whenever a question arose affecting the character or efficiency of an officer, it was infinitely better that the evidence, instead of being more or less a haphazard collection of gossip and irresponsible statements, should be evidence which had attaching to it the solemnity of an oath, so that if false statements were made prosecutions for perjury could follow. But notwithstanding the explanation of the Attorney General, the Committee were still in doubt as to the scope of the proposals. It was quite true that Section 72 of the Army Act referred only to courts of inquiry in cases of desertion, and in that case the statute conferred the power to administer an oath. Therefore, as far as that case was concerned, there was no necessity for this Amendment. What, then, were the
  "other courts" referred to under Section 70? No other courts were mentioned in the Act of Parliament; therefore, Section 70, which was perfectly general in its terms, and gave power to the Secretary of State to make rules as to the procedure, etc., of courts
  1038
  of inquiry, must be referring to courts of inquiry other than or beyond those mentioned in Section 72. Prima facie there was no restriction whatever as to e, the courts of inquiry to which it referred. Section 124 of the regulations apparently applied in terms to all courts of inquiry of any sort or kind except those under Section 72, and the only J power to make Regulation 124 was the power contained in Section 70 of the Act. It seemed to him to follow that Section 70 of the Act applied to all courts of inquiry of any sort or kind; that Regulation 124, which otherwise would be ultra vires, applied also to all courts of inquiry; and thirdly, that the amendment which the Government proposed to introduce, namely, that evidence might he taken on oath, applied equally to all courts of inquiry. Before the matter was disposed of he thought the Committee should come to some understanding, because this point had a very vital bearing on the future administration of the law.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked what would become of Regulation 124 if this clause became law. The position would be that they would have a court which was not a court, evidence which was not evidence, and oaths, apparently, which had no effect whatever. The regulation said "a court of inquiry has no judicial power," and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fifeshire thought there might he prosecutions for perjury if false witness was borne on oath before a court which bad no judicial power. Be might be right in that view, but certainly His Majesty's Ministers were putting forward a new puzzle. The Regulation further staled that the court "is in strictness not a court at all." Was there ever such a proposition as that a man's character might he blasted for ever by evidence taken upon oath before a court which had no judicial power and which was not a court at all? The Government had recently issued an order that any man who in future exhibited the white flag should be court-martialled. The opening section of the Army Act stated "any person who shamefully abandons or delivers up any garrison, place, post, or guard, should on conviction by court martial be liable to suffer death." Here was a case, then,

  1039
  in which a man's life might actually be at stake; but being a military man he would be in a position of greater inferiority than the humblest servant or subject of His Majesty. All this was being done because of the panic which had arisen in consequence of the unfortunate occurrences in South Africa. But if, as they were told, the war was nearly over, why could not the matter wait a bit? This was an important clause, affecting about
  300,000 men. Where would these courts be held? On the veldt, perhaps, in some ramshackle place, with the men up to their knees in water, without any of the forms or decencies of judicial procedure. Without rhyme or reason the whole British constitution was being turned topsy-turvey. As the clause stood, the court would have no power to compel witnesses to attend; in other words, the accusing party, which would always be the party of discipline, would have power to compel men to come forward, but the accused would not have the power even to issue a subpoena. One side only, and that the accusing side, would be presented, with the result that the moment the court of inquiry started there would be a presumption of guilt. Further, "the court of inquiry will give no opinion on the conduct of any officer or soldier." The Committee were told that the court was really intended to assist the Commander-in-Chief, and yet it could not even make a Report. Such regulations would not be allowed even for an Irish petty sessions court, and yet it was calmly proposed to pass this important clause between one and two o'clock in the morning.
  COLONEL NOLANthought the clause might do great harm and produce a very extraordinary state of affairs. The members of a court-martial were practically selected in turn, and the individual opinions were not recorded. Such a body could, therefore, be very independent. With a court of inquiry it was totally different. The Commander-in-Chief put whatever men he liked upon a court of inquiry, and it could be ascertained how each member voted. The proceedings were secret, and the evidence was really only a string of affidavits, not subjected to the sifting of cross-examination. This proposal would put an
  1040
  enormous power into the hands of a central clique. If, however, the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were accepted, so much harm would not be done.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY, in reply, submitted that the section alluded to did give a, very considerable protection to those who might be in danger from courts of inquiry.
  MR. LAMBERTthought an opportunity should be afforded the men of being present during the inquiry. The verdict in regard to the Lindley surrender was that Colonel Spragge could have held out longer had not some irresponsible person held up the white flag, yet those men were not called. Was an Amendment to remedy this going to be inserted in the Act, or did they intend to discharged it? They practically charged the men in this case with cowardice—
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member misunderstands the finding of the court, which was that persons not directed by Colonel Spragge to raise the white flag had raised it; and therefore no blame attached to Colonel Spragge.
  MR. LAMBERTpointed out that the inquiry was to investigate the circumstances under which Lieut.-Colonel Spragge and others became prisoners of war. A lieutenant and a corporal were accused by this court of inquiry of having held up the white flag when they had no business to do it. The lieutenant was severely wounded, and could not attend, and the corporal had been discharged before the inquiry was held. Was it not plain that those men ought to have a right to be present at the court of inquiry He thought this case afforded a very good reason for inserting the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment in the Act.
  MR. BRODRICK: it is impossible to provide that all men, wounded or unwounded, shall be present. These matters had to be brought to an issue promptly, and if such conditions were made obviously no court-martial or inquiry could be held at all.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: We have had several questions put pointedly to the Government. My right hon. friend

  1041
  the Member for East Fife and my hon. and learned friend have asked questions which have not been answered, and after all this discussion we shall still be legislating absolutely in the dark upon the main question. We do not know whether the law we are making is to apply to the principal courts, nor do we know whether the Government are going to discourage the holding of these inquiries. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to think that in courts held during the present war these rules had been observed, but that is not so. Inquiries have been held, and they have been called courts of inquiry, and their decisions have been printed in the usual form, and action has been taken on the decisions of those courts. That is entirely contrary to these rules, for those courts were entirely outside what we are dealing with to-night. The Member for East Fife has argued that these words must apply to all courts. I prefer the other alternative, that these courts have been courts outside the statute. I think some answer ought to have been given to the argument of my right hon. friend the Member for East Fife. We are still being asked to legislate in the dark.
  MR. BRODRICKassured the right hon. Gentleman that the intention of the Government was to discourage prerogative courts, and as far as possible to employ the new machinery of courts on oath under the rules of procedure.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he thought the Attorney General was in error. Why, in a matter so important as this, should not the statute he made perfectly clear? The object they all had at heart was the same.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he could not see that the definition clause affected the question in the least.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid if that was really the case, why should it be left in any doubt?
  COLONEL WELBYsaid he was satisfied with the explanation of the Secretary for War that the object he had in view was provided for, and he therefore asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of "No" from Irish Members]
  MR. TULLYsaid he thought this a most useful Amendment. He objected to the sanction of an oath being given to camp gossip. Africa had been called the land of lies, but if this clause was carried in its present form they would have in addition to call it the land of blasphemy. He thought the procedure to be set up under this proposal was something very like the procedure adopted by the French, and which we had been condemning, in the case of Captain Dreyfus. That was the procedure we were going to apply under this section to our own officers.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: suggested that the questions which had been referred to in the debate on the Amendment should be considered by the Government.
  MR. BRODRICK: assured the hon. and learned Member that they would take care to consider these matters.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—
  Ayes, 148; Noes, 64. (Division List No. 136.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brookfield, Col. Montagu

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Doughty, George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Arnold Forster, Hugh O.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Chapman, Edward

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

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

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Black, Alexander William

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colville, John

  Forster, Henry William

  Bond, Edward

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Fuller, J. M. F.

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

  Rigg, Richard

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Gordon, MjEvans- (T'rH'mlets

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. R (Cambs

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'ry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Max well, W J H (Dumfriesshire

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

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Spear, John Ward

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

  Middlemore, John T.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stock, James Henry

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Higginbottom, S W.

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsde

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Valentia, Viscount

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkn'y)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Nicol, Donal Ninian

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

  Lawrence, William F.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Partington, Oswald

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Feel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Wyndham-Quin, Major H. W.

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Levy, Maurice

  Penn, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Purvis, Robert

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  NOES.

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

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Dowd, John

  Boland, John

  Hammond, John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boyle, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Caldwell, James

  Hope, John D. (Fife, West)

  O'Shee, James John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crean, Eugene

  Leamy, Edmund

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cullinan, J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sullivan, Donal

  Daly, James

  Lundon, W.

  Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N

  Delany, William

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Tully, Jasper

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Govern, T.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Duffy, William J.

  Minch, Matthew

  Woodhouse Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Edwards, Frank

  Murnaghan, George

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murphy, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Schedule:—
  COLONEL NOLANwished to draw attention to the schedule, which provided that only one penny was allowed for the soldier's breakfast. That was absurd, especially when they remembered that sugar was taxed now. The allowance ought to be threepence at least.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to move an Amendment on the schedule?
  COLONEL NOLANsaid he would sooner have no schedule at all, and he moved that these words be omitted.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 3 he will see that it refers to the schedule. There must be a schedule to the Act.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid he moved to leave out all after line 18 to end of the schedule.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To Leave out from line 18 to the end of the schedule."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
  MR. O'SHEEsaid licensed victuallers were only allowed 1s. 3½d. for a hot meal to soldiers billeted on them, and 4d. for lodging. Where no hot meal was served only
  4d. was allowed for lodging, attendance, salt, pepper, and vinegar. That seemed unfair, apart from the great inconvenience which was caused to publicans by billeting soldiers upon them. It dislocated the whole of their domestic life, especially when servant boys and girls had to give up their beds to the soldiers. For the 1s. 3½d., for the hot meal, the publican had to provide 1¼ lb. meat, 1 lb. bread, ¼ lb. potatoes or other vegetables, vinegar, salt, pepper, and two pints of small beer, and that could only be supplied at a loss. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to offer some explanation with reference to the breakfasts, and why there was no reference to them in the Act of
  1881.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid it was clear that the hon. Member was not aware that in 1891, as a result of complaints from the licensed victuallers, the whole question of billeting was reconsidered. At the same time it was decided that a simple breakfast, consisting of half a pound of bread and a cup of tea, should be provided for 1½d. The hon. Member was probably not aware that the State provided a soldier with bread and meat, and that he provided himself with the remainder; therefore only bread and meat was paid for by the State on billet. He did not think that the licensed victualler had much to complain of, and it was always
  held that the country had the right to call on him to provide billets.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid he had not received a reply with reference to the breakfasts.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that a breakfast consisting of half a pound of bread and a cup of tea was introduced by the Act of 1891.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid that, there was no mention whatever of breakfasts in the Act of
  1881.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid the Act had been reprinted.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid there should have been an amending Act.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that the Act was reprinted in 1893, having been amended in
  1891.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid that if the Secretary of State for War would make the price of breakfasts 3d. he would not divide on the question.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that the question had been considered over and over again, and there was no reason whatever for making further provision.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid that if the Act of 1881, which he had in his hand, were correctly printed his point was good. The Act could not be changed by merely reprinting it. There should have been an amending Act.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that the Act of 1881 had been amended from time to time, and he should be glad to furnish the hon. Member with the Act as reprinted.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 131; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 137.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. E.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Black, Alexander William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Bond, Edward

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

  Partington, Oswald

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Rigg, Richard

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawrence, William F.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Doughty, George

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk, N. S.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Levy, Maurice

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Edwards, Frank

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Stock, James Henry

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B (Cambs

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Valentia, Viscount

  Forster, Henry William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (TrH'mlets

  More, Robt Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Grant, Corrie

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'y)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  NOES.

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

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Boland, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Boyle, James

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Mara, James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Colville, John

  Lambert, George

  Reddy, M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Daly, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Tully, Jasper

  Doogan, R. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Dully, William J.

  Minch, Matthew

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Murnaghan, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murphy, J.

  Colonel Nolan and Mr. O'Shee.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Schedule agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a third time. It was necessary it should be passed during the week.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely insatiable. He had obtained the Committee stage very easily.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow at Two of the clock.
  Adjourned at ten minutes before Three of the clock.

The Lord Balinhard (E. Southesk) took the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
  Finchley and Hendon Tramways.
  And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with—
  South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways (Petition for additional provision).
  London United Tramways.
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.)
BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
  RODGER'S PATENT (PETITION FOR BILL).
  Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Friday next.
BRIDEWELL HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
  BETHLEM HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
  Supplemental Reports of His Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
WATFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  WORCESTER TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CHESTER CAS BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn, The order made on the 12th of March last discharged; and Bill committed.
NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) GAS BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 12th and 28th of March last discharged; and Bill committed.
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GRAVESEND GAS BILL.
  NEATH HARBOUR RILL.
    WOLVERHAMPTON AND CANNOCK CHASE RAILWAY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (CANADA DOCK WORKS, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]

    MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    MANCHESTER (MARKET STREET AREA) IMPROVEMENTS BILL [H.L.].
    MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    STOCK PORT CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.].
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the L. Kenry (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl) be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Viscount Bangor; read, and agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 34.)
A Bill intituled an Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Aberavon, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Hampton, Hoddesdon, Ince-in-Makerfield, Mountain Ash, Neath (Rural District), Pontypridd, Teddington, and Worsley.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.] (NO. 35.)
A Bill intituled an Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Barry, Crompton, Foots Cray, Friern Barnet, Isle of Thanet (Rural), Newbury, Pudsey, Ross, Roundhay, and Royton.
Were presented by the Earl of Hard wicke (for the Earl of Dudley); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 36.)
  THAMES AND SEVERN PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 37.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following papers having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to order of the House of the 17th of February,
1896, viz.:—

1. Marriages, Births, and Deaths (England).—General Abstract for 1900. (March 30.)

2. South Africa—

I. Further correspondence relating to affairs in South Africa (in continuation of [Cd. 420], December, 1900).

II. Letter from Commandant Louis Botha to Lord Kitchener, dated 13th February, 1901. (April 2.)

3. Trade.—Annual statement of trade of United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions, for 1900: Volume I. (April
3.)

4. Army.—Approximate estimate of expenditure under the Barracks Act of 1890 and Military Works Acts of 1897 and 1899. (April 11.)

5. Metropolitan Cattle Market.—Account of moneys received and paid by the Chamberlain of the City of London
876
in relation to the Metropolitan Cattle Market for the year 1900; also an ac count of extraordinary works executed other than general repairs for the same period. (April 11.)

6. Explosives—

I. (Explosion at Chilworth Gunpowder Factory).—Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Major A. Cooper-Key, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred in the corning house at the factory of the Chilworth Gunpowder Company, Limited, at Chilworth, Surrey, on the 12th February, 1901.

II. (Explosion at Nobel's Explosives Factory at Ardeer, Ayrshire).—Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain M. B. Lloyd, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred in one of the dynamite cartridge huts at the factory of Nobel's Explosives Company, Limited, at Ardeer, near Stevenston, in the county of Ayr, on the 29th January, 1901. (April
11.)

7. Trade Reports—

I. Annual Series:

No. 2568. Germany (German East Africa).

No. 2569. France (La Rochelle and District). (April 11.)

No. 2570. United States (Baltimore and District). (April 13.)

No. 2571. United States (Texas).

No. 2572. United States (Charleston). (April 17.)

No. 2573. Greece (The Morea, Acarnania, Etolia).

No. 2574. Germany (Pomerania).

No. 2575. Trade of Switzerland for 1900. (April 18.)

II. Miscellaneous Series:

No. 549. German Colonial Estimates for 1901.

No. 550. Zinc Industry in United States. (April 13.)

877

8. Army and Militia.—Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting for 1900. (April 17.)

9. Egypt, No. 1. (1901).—Reports by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the Finances, Administration, and condition of Egypt and the Soudan in 1900. (April 18.)

10. China. No. 3. (1901).—Further correspondence respecting events at Peking (in continuation of China, No. 4 (1900)). (April 18.)

11. Treaty Series, No. 4. (1901).—Agreement additional to the Convention between the United Kingdom and France, of 8th December, 1882, relative to the exchange of Telegraph Money Orders between the, two countries; signed at Paris 10th October, 1900 (ratifications exchanged at Paris 16th March, 1901). (April 19.)

12. Agrarian Offences (Provinces) (Ireland).—Return for the Year ended 31st December, 1900. (April 19.)

13. Agricultural Statistics (Ireland).—

I. Agricultural Statistics of Ireland, with detailed Report for 1900.

II. Return of prices of Agricultural Products and Live Stock for 1900. (April 19.)

14. Loan Fund Board (Ireland).—Sixty-third Annual Report for 1900. (April 19.)

15. Queensland.—The Parliament of the Commonwealth Elections Act and the Elections Acts, 1885 to 1898. Amendment Act of 1900.
(April 20.)

16. Western Australia.—The Constitution Act Amendment Act, 1900, No. V. (April 20.)

17. Education (Scotland).—Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 19th April, 1901, amending the terms of Article 89 (b) of the Code of 1901. (April 20.)

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

SOUTH AFRICAN CAMPAIGN.
Return stating the number of sailors and soldiers, giving their names and
878
description, who have been invalided home since the commencement of the South African Campaign, and have died from wounds or diseases; laid before the House (pursuant to Address of the 21st of February last), and to be printed. (No. 30.)

POLICE (SCOTLAND).
Forty-third Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, for the year ended 31st December, 1900.
NATIONAL GALLERY, ETC. (SCOTLAND).
Seventh Annual Report to the Secretary for Scotland by the commissioners and trustees of the Board of Manufacturers in Scotland, for the year ending 30th September, 1900.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1897.
Third Report of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Hoard to the Secretary for Scotland.
CROFTER HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS. 1886–87.
Report by the Crofters Commission, being for the year ended 31st December, 1900

TRADE REPORTS.
I. Annual Series.—No. 2576. Germany (Chemnitz).
II. Miscellaneous Series.—No. 551. Veterinary work in British East Africa and Uganda Protectorate, 1898–1900.
III. Index to Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Representatives abroad on trade and subjects of general interest (with appendix). 1900.
Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).
Return of all loans raised in England under the provisions of any Acts of Parliament chargeable on the revenues of India outstanding at the commencement of the half year ended on the 31st March. 1901, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, etc.
EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN, 1885.
Account for the year ending 31st March, 1901.
GREEK LOAN, 1898.
Account for the year ending 31st March, 1901.

PUBLIC RECORDS.
I. (Admiralty Department).—Seventh Schedule, containing a list and particulars of classes of documents which have been removed from the office of the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and deposited in the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein.
II. (Supreme Court of Judicature): Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in the Central Office and in the District Registries which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office:

SUPERANNUATION (PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS).
Treasury Minute, dated 22nd March, 1901, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of junior inspector, attached to the Elementary Branch of the Board of Education, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired on the Public Service are required.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
Order, dated the 25th day of March, 1901, prohibiting the landing of animals from the Republic of Chile.

PULLING DISTRICTS.
1. County of Cambridge.—Order made by the County Council of the County of Cambridge creating a new polling district in the Eastern Division of the county;
2.—County of Essex.—Order made by the County Council of the County of Essex on 2nd April, 1901, altering certain polling districts in the county;
3. City of Wakefield.—Order made by the Council of the City of Wakefield
880
on 13th March, 1901, altering certain polling districts in the city.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT) (WAREHOUSES IN FACTORIES OR WORKSHOPS WHERE BRIGHT OR BURNISHED METAL GOODS ARE MADE).
Order, dated 6th September, 1900, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 65 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, and Section 39 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, permitting warehouses where bright or burnished metal goods are made to be treated as separate factories or workshops as far as regards the period of employment of children, young persons, and women.
TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
Minute by the Board of Education sanctioning the subjects to be taught under the Act, for the City and County Borough of Belfast.
ARKLOW HARBOUR.
Report and Abstract of Accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1900; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
University Court Ordinance, No. V. (Glasgow No. 1). Regulations for Degrees in Science in Agriculture; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 31.)
THAMES CONSERVANCY.
General Report of the Conservators of the River Thames, from 1st January, 1900, to 31st December, 1900, with a statement of the accounts of the Conservators for the year ended 31st December, 1900; Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of the Corporation of the City of Glasgow; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
  Petition against alteration of; of the Presbytery of Abernethy; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  BETTING BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to render penal the inciting persons to betting and wagering was presented by the Lord Bishop of Hereford; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 32.)

  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act, 1881, was presented by the Lord Kenyon; read 1a; and to be printed. (No.
  33.)
  House adjonrned at twenty five minutes before Five of the clock, till to-morrow, Two of the clock.