Sitting of 9 May 1901

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of Cork (Mid Cork), in the room of Charles
1124
Kearns Deane Tanner, esquire, deceased.—(Captain Donelan.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  DEVONPORT CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
    GLASGOW AND RENFREW DISTRICT RAILWAY TRANSFER BILL.
    Read the third time and passed.

RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL. [BY ORDER.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
*SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDmoved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He said it was an attempt on the part of me of the water companies to take water from the Dorney fields. Although it was apparently promoted by what was mown as a country company, it was in reality a child of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company, which was trying to secure possession of water of importance to the Thames. The promoters said that if they were allowed to take the water now they would not deprive Buckinghamshire of anything which belonged to it. But Buckinghamshire did not seem to be at all anxious that the company should be allowed to take the water in any shape or form, and it was worthy of note that the county councils of both Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire, and almost every local authority in those counties, were opposed to the Bill. This was really an attempt to occupy ground by means of a little innocent Bill, so that at some future time the water might be given to London, It was the old story of trying to denude the Thames of its water in a way which was most deleterious to the public interest. He failed entirely to see what difference there was between drawing water out of the Thames and abstracting it from near the banks of the Thames just before it flowed into the river. If the Bill were passed the water would be carried away to districts which had no connection whatever with the place from

1125
which it was obtained. For many years the question of the water supply of London had been before the House, and he believed it was admitted on all sides that the limit of water to be taken from the Thames, except such as could be obtained by storage at the proper time, had been absolutely reached. It had been estimated that the amount of water which now passed over Teddington Weir on the driest day was only 43 million gallons, and it was considered that the lowest amount necessary in the interests of the safety of navigation was 200 million gallons daily. The quantity which would be withdrawn from the Dorney fields under this Bill was more than 43 million gallons daily, and consequently, if the measure were passed, there might come a day in the year when no water whatever would pass over Teddington Weir. This was a very serious matter. It was found most difficult already to keep a proper head of water in the reach of the Thames between Boveney and Windsor during the dry seasons. Since this matter had been brought forward he had had an opportunity of referring to a report drawn up at the time when the Windsor Castle drainage was remodelled. That was in 1863. The engineers then found that in the Windsor Home Park the Thames itself was flowing through a gravel bed at the rate of half a mile per day for a width of nearly one mile. The Dean and Chapter of Windsor Castle, finding that some of the foundations of the chapel had lately given way, asked for a report from their surveyor, and he warned them that if that large body of water were withdrawn it might have very dangerous effects on the foundations of the Chapel, and the Windsor water supply might also be interfered with. He felt that the time had come when Parliament should say that until a Water Bill had been brought in by Government no more water should be abstracted from the Thames for the benefit of districts which had no right whatever to it. He hoped that Parliament would refuse to allow this great watershed to be depleted, seeing that the consequences might be most injurious, not only to Windsor, but also to London. It was admitted by the promoters themselves that they did not want this water at the present moment. They were only seeking to secure it for
1126
use a few years hence, and, under these circumstances, he appealed to the House not to read the Bill a second time.
MAJOR GRENFELL, in seconding the Amendment, said he thought he could show to the House good reasons for voting against the Second Reading of the Bill. Parliament ought to be very careful before giving anyone power to take water out of a district by pumping. It seemed to him that the proper way of supplying an area with water was by means of storage. It was quite possible that in future the county councils of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, and Middlesex might combine together in some great storage scheme. It was impossible to over-estimate the damage that was done to areas by the abstraction of water from the ground. Moisture was withdrawn from the ground, and the loss to the farmer could not be gauged. One ground of opposition to this Bill was that it would be utilised to enable the South-wark and Vauxhall Company to supply a suburb of London with water in an underhand way. He had for many years been well acquainted with the Thames from Oxford to Putney. Those who watched the river carefully were well aware that it depended upon a large body of underground water, which to all intents and purposes was the Thames itself. This Bill took powers to sink wells and to put in pumping machinery in the very area through which that underground water was flowing, and the promoters would secure a large volume of water without paying one penny towards the cost of the upkeep of the upper part of the river. This water would be used in order to make profit for the promoters. The Bill was opposed by every county council and every local authority in the area which was affected by it—the area which was to be robbed of its water for private trading purposes, in order that a suburban district many miles distant might be served. There was another strong reason for opposing the Bill. There was no provision whereby local authorities could acquire the power to supply water to their own localities, and if the Bill were passed those local authorities would be bound hand and foot to a private trading, water-robbing

1127
company. He saw in the Bill a proposal for the acquisition of the Slough waterworks, but it so happened that the Urban District Council at Slough had unanimously passed a resolution against the Bill, as they entertained hopes of acquiring the waterworks for themselves. The Buckinghamshire County Council also opposed the Bill. They objected to water being taken out of what was admittedly a dry soil in order to supply distant districts. The soil of Buckinghamshire was a thirsty soil. The rainfall over the area was small, and if a private company were allowed to come in and take away water without control it might do the greatest possible harm to the various industries of the district. In the county of Hertfordshire steam pumps had been put in for the purpose of supplying water to London, and the result had been to seriously lower the water of the river there. He wished them to take warning by the example, and he implored the House not to sanction any scheme which would take away water from the river in the county of Buckinghamshire. The scheme was one of spoliation and robbery, and inasmuch as all the local bodies were strongly opposed to the principle of the Bill he hoped that the House would at once throw out a measure the carrying of which would deprive a large area of its water for the purpose of supplying districts at a great distance and putting money into the pockets of private traders.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland.)
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. BOULNOIS: said he had no personal interest in the Bill, but he did not think it deserved to be described as a scheme of spoliation and robbery. It was a very harmless Bill, after all. Its objects were to authorise an existing company to lay two lines of pipes to outlying districts where the company already had powers to supply water under an Act passed last year, and they also asked powers to extend their limits of supply to various parishes
1128
which had at present no system of water supply. He did not think that there could be any question that there were parts of Buckinghamshire which were in need of a water supply, which the company was prepared to give by establishing high-level reservoirs, to which they could pump from the present wells. All the objections to a Bill of this kind ought really to be urged before a Committee upstairs, and the House was obviously not in a position to determine the questions which had been raised by his hon. friend. The Committee could investigate them, and would have evidence before it as to whether there was a desire on the part of the inhabitants of the districts concerned to have a system of water supply. The question of taking water out of the county of Buckinghamshire was obviously one for a Committee. It was impossible to draw a hard and fast line, and to say that the boundaries of counties should separate the sources of supply, and that on the Hertfordshire side only Hertfordshire water should be used, and on the Buckinghamshire side only Buckinghamshire water should be used. A reasonable latitude should be allowed in matters of that kind, and it was impossible to fix an absolute distinction. Many provincial towns went far afield for their water, and it was well known that the London County Council sought its source of supply in Wales. There would be no difficulty in introducing upstairs substantial limitations which would prevent injury to any town, and he was quite sure the promoters would assent. In the Bill of 1900 the promoters vied with the Hertfordshire County Council in introducing a restrictive clause limiting the quantity of water to be taken from the valley of the Colne for consumption outside, and similar protection could very easily be afforded in the present Bill. He hoped the House would seriously consider whether it should decide a question of this kind without having evidence before it. A suggestion was made by his hon. friend that there was something behind the Bill, and it was stated that there was a close connection between the promoters of the Bill and one of the London Water companies, which naturally created apprehension, but such apprehension was not

1129
well founded. The London water companies were not so selfish as to say that every drop of water in the watershed of the Thames should necessarily go into the Thames. It was an enormous area, and it was ridiculous to say that every drop of water in it should go into the Thames and that none of it should be used by the inhabitants of the surrounding districts. It would be a pity to reject the Bill on the Second Reading, and he hoped that the usual course would be taken in the case of a small Bill of this kind, and that it would be sent to a Committee.
*MR. MELLORsaid that with his experience as Chairman of Committee he would, in nineteen cases out of twenty, advise the House to send a Bill of that kind to a Committee, but there were cases where the principle of the Bill was vicious and where no compensation could be given for the injury which might result, in which the House might well depart from that course. He was afraid he must say, in spite of the ingenious appeal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that this was a Bill of that character, and unless the rights of poor people who had wells in the districts concerned were protected he thought the House might well refuse to give the Bill Second Reading. No compensation could be given for the abstraction of water. If a man had a well on his land, and the water were taken away, the land might become valueless, and he could not be compensated in money. Every local authority in the districts concerned was against the present Bill, and had asked the county councils to oppose it, so that the House might know what was the real truth in regard to it. He hoped the House would not be led away by the plausible argument of supplying other districts with water, because they had no right to take away water from one district in order to supply another district. When he was on the Royal Commission on the Water Supply of London nothing struck him more than the manner in which the Thames Conservancy had succeeded in keeping the water in the river pure. What was their position in regard to the present Bill? The Chairman of the Thames Conservancy had moved its
1130
rejection, not in his individual capacity but as the Chairman of the Thames Conservancy. He believed that the people of London owed the Thames Conservancy a great debt of gratitude for the admirable manner in which they had discharged their duty; the Thames Conservancy now said that the Bill before the House was an attempt to divert water from the Thames which ought to be kept in it. When he was Chairman of the Unopposed Bills Committee a water Bill was before them. Fortunately, the Member for the district concerned was on the Committee, and he pointed out that the effect of the Bill would be to take away water from a number of poor cottagers who could not protect themselves, and the Bill was adjourned in order that the Committee could satisfy themselves that that would not be done. He hoped the House would listen to the voice of the local authorities and the Thames Conservancy, and reject the Bill.
MR. HUDSONsaid that there were three parishes in Hertfordshire mentioned in the Bill, and while they did not object to wells being sunk to supply the inhabitants, they strongly objected to water being supplied to other companies, especially a London water company. It was quite certain that if the Bill were passed a quantity of water would be diverted from Hertfordshire to Buckinghamshire. In the Bill of 1900 it was provided that only 300,000 gallons should be drawn per diem, except in case of emergency, but if the present Bill were carried there might be an emergency every day. The local authorities were opposed to the Bill, and he earnestly hoped the House would reject it.
MR. CARLILEsaid he would not have intervened in the debate but for the fact that he had been specially requested by the Buckinghamshire County Council to urge the House to oppose this Bill. He considered that it would be a most improper thing for this company to seize a commodity which was of such great value to the county of Buckinghamshire, and he hoped that the House would listen to the appeal, which was not only made by that county, but also by Middlesex and Hertfordshire and other counties.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the only personal interest which he had in the matter was that, being a keen fisherman, he objected to these water companies destroying all the fish as they did. From the London point of view, however, this matter was of considerable importance. He thought the time had come when the demands of the small water companies should be dealt with by a large general scheme. With regard to London itself, the question was going to be dealt with, and he hoped decisively, in the next session; but beyond that he considered it was necessary also to consider the whole water supply of the country and how far it could be derived from the Thames. If these small companies were allowed to take water from the Thames and its sources, it must necessarily be very detrimental to London as a whole, and he should, therefore, vote against the Bill. He should vote against it not only on that ground, but also on the ground that this company was in the hands of the Southwark and Vauxhall Company. The last time that this question was raised it was raised openly by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, and now it was raised on behalf of the same company in a very insidious way. As a matter of fact, it was not the desire of the company to supply the villages in the district over which it was proposed to acquire powers; what they wanted to obtain was a new area, and in time it would be discovered that they had amalgamated with the Southwark and Vauxhall Company.
MR. ROTHSCHILDsaid he wished to draw attention to one objection which had not been mentioned, and that was that the district bordering the area claimed by the Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Water Company under this Bill was supplied by underground reservoirs in the chalk; and while the company had promised only to obtain the water which was in the area itself, by sinking wells and pumping they would take away the water from the surrounding country and cause a dearth of water in the neighbouring area. He should oppose the Bill.
Question put, and negatived; words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; Second Beading put off for six months.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. (BY ORDER.)
Read a second time, and committed.
WINSFORD URBAN DISTRICT (GAS TRANSFER, ETC.) BILL.
"To empower the Urban District Council of Winsford, in the county of Chester, to manufacture and supply gas, and to provide for the transfer to the Council of the undertaking of the Over and Wharton Gas Company, Limited, or of the liquidators appointed by the said Company; and to make further provision in regard to the finance of the said district; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
CROMER WATER BILL.
Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 3).
Mr. SEALE-HAYNE reported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bills, That the parties opposing the London County Council (Tramways and Street Widenings) Bill had stated that the evidence of Sub-divisional Inspector Miller, E Division Police Station, Gray's Inn Road, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Sub-divisional Inspector Miller do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at half-past eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Sub-divisional Inspector Miller do attend the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bills to-morrow, at half-past eleven of the clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
Mr. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned

1133
till Monday next, at half-past eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise and provide for the removal of the school for Orphans of Freemen of the City of London to a new site in the parish of Walton-on-the-Hill, in the county of Surrey, and the sale of the site and buildings at Brixton now occupied by the school; and for other purposes." London (City) School for Orphans of Freemen Bill [Lords].
LONDON (CITY) SCHOOL FOR ORPHANS OF FREEMEN BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896.
  Petition from Crewe, against re-enactment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Catfield; Uffculme; Tiverton; Wolverhampton; Hipperholme; Birmingham; Foots Cray; Darwen; Westcott Barton; Belvedere; Huddersfield; Morecambe; Collyhurst; Spittal; Woking; Bury; Bradford; Taunton; Kingsdon; Leek; Sandhurst; Colne (eight); Knaresborough (two); West Kensington Park; Crewe; Sydmonton; Swindon (five); Malvern Link; Wycliffe; Morecambe; Arkholme-with-Cawood; Brotton; Redcar; Camberwell; Plymouth; Brixham; Westgate; Evenwood; Long Clawson; Smethwick; Worcester; Purton; Lydbrook; Maxworthy Northlew; Black Torrington; Sheep-wash; Milton Damerell; and Greenock; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  Petition from Holbeach, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Easton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Wandsworth; Brighouse and Elland; Birmingham; Northlew; Brixham; Ashton under Lyne; Louth; and Stockport; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Stirling; Old Machar; Alford; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented, of General Report and Statistics for the year 1900, Part I. (District Statistics) Statistics of the Persons employed, Output, and Accidents at Mines and Quarries in the United Kingdom, arranged according to the inspection Districts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Report by Captain the Honourable T. F. Fremantle, 1st Bucks Volunteer Rifle Corps, and Captain E. C. H. Grant, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, on Swiss Rifle Ranges [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of General Report on Schools for the Blind and Deaf for the two years ended 31st August, 1900, by J. King, Esquire, Senior Chief Inspector, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented, of Statutes made by the Governing Body of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, on 22nd December, 1900, amending Sections 6 and 10 of Statute X. and Statute XXIV. of the Statutes of that College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 162.]

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of New Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) as revised by the Board and sanctioned by the

  1135
  Treasury for the year 1900–1 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CHINA (No. 4, 1901).
  Copy presented, of Plans referred to in China (No. 3, 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2591 to 2593 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT, 1901–2)
  Address for "Copy of the Indian Financial Statement for 1901–2, and of the Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Governor General thereon."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH GENERAL BOTHA.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, can he say what the specific terms of peace were which Sir Alfred Milner states, in his despatch of 6th February, 1901, had been offered by Lord Kitchener and were generally regarded as a generous and statesmanlike offer, and one which, if firmly adhered to, would ultimately be accepted; were these terms identical with those subsequently offered by Lord Kitchener, in his letter to General Botha on 7th March, 1901, and rejected by General Botha on 16th March, 1901; and, if they were not identical, can he say in what respect the terms of 7th March, 1901, differed from those offered previous to 6th February, 1901.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The terms referred to by Sir A. Milner in the despatch referred to are those stated in his telegram of 12th January and in Lord Kitchener's speech at a meeting of the Burgher Peace Committee, which will be found at page 28 and page 58 of Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 547. The offer made to Commandant Botha as the condition for a
  1136
  general pacification was more extended and more definite, but as it was rejected by Commandant Botha His Majesty's Government are no longer bound by it.

  TRANSVAAL GOLD MINES.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the names of the proprietors of the mines in the Transvaal which are now producing gold; and, whether his reports show that any further mines will be started this month, and the names of the proprietors of these mines.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry to say I have no information on the subject.
  MR. BLACK: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for it?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no objection to writing for it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Cable for it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is hardly worth telegraphing for.

TAXATION ON THE MINES.
MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the laws of the Transvaal, which continue to be administered by the British Government, impose any tax direct or indirect or exact any royalty from the gold mining industry or upon material used in connection therewith; if so, can he state what these taxes or royalties are, and, approximately, what proportion of the gold produced they absorb; and whether they will be enforced by the British Government for the benefit of His Majesty.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Transvaal laws imposed prospectors' or diggers' licences varying from 2s. 6d. to £1 per claim per month, and a 5 per cent. tax on the net profit of the working of the mines, except on certain forms of mining lease, when 10s. a morgen or 2½ per cent. on the gross production was payable. Machinery paid 1½ per cent. on importation, and the mining industry of course

1137
contributed indirectly to the revenue under many other heads of customs (2) I do not know what proportion of the gold production was absorbed by taxation. (3) Any taxes received will of course, be paid into the Transvaal Treasury.

JAMESON RAID—BOER CLAIMS.
MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether the British Government is prepared to entertain certain claims of those Boers who have suffered loss owing to the Jameson raid, and who have received no compensation; and, if not, will he state to whom the claims should be sent.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any cases of the kind referred to.
MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive particulars of the cases, because, if so, I will send in something for him?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If there are any cases of the kind referred to—that is to say, cases of loss for which no compensation has been received—they should be sent in the first instance to the present Transvaal Government.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To be sent in to Mr. Rhodes, I suppose?
MR. O'MARA: Who are the present Transvaal Government?

CAPE COLONY—FINANCE AND TAXATION.
MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the revenue and expenditure of Cape Colony for the year ending 30th June, 1900, the estimated revenue and expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1901; and whether any additional taxation has been imposed in Cape Colony in consequence of the war.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The revenue for the year ending 30th June, 1900, was £6,369,000, the expenditure £6,684,000. The Estimates for the year
1138
ending 30th June, 1901, were, revenue £7,852,000, expenditure, £7,225,000, which included a deficit of £69,000 brought forward. No additional taxation has yet been imposed, but the Cape Assembly has not met since October last.

FARM BURNING.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with regard to the fact that on or about the 8th August last, in consequence of shots having been fired by Boers at a train at Bronkhurst, on the line between Pretoria and Middelburg, all the farms within a radius of ten miles were fired by British soldiery, will he state how many men, women, and children were rendered homeless by this operation, and what measures, if any, were taken for the protection from death by exposure and starvation of those who were thus deprived of their property.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The hon. Member appears to refer to the burning of a group of farms three miles north of Shietpoort, which is near Bronkhurst Spruit. This was carried out because two trains were fired at from this direction and certain casualties were caused thereby. I have no information as to the number or subsequent treatment of the inhabitants.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is there no official information of any kind as to the fate of these women and children?
[No answer was returned.]

BURNING OF DE WET'S HOUSE.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state on what grounds was the house of General De Wet set on fire and burnt to the ground by British troops; and by whom was the order given to fire this house.
MR. BRODRICK: General De Wet's house was burned in June last, because it was considered by the military authorities to be necessary in order to prevent the railway line being destroyed. The line had been cut in close proximity to the farm.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give an assurance that De Wet's family will not be destroyed too?
MR. TULLY: How many times has the railway been cut since?
[No answer was returned.]

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY AND FARM BURNING.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies will he state what is the nature of the personal punishment to which he referred and which he recommended in December last as a substitution for the punishment of the burning of the Boer farms in South Africa.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not interfered in any way with the discretion of the military authorities, and the hon. Member is incorrect in saying that I have recommended any punishment.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my question? With all respect to him, he has not done so.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINdid not rise.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I press for an answer.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman declines to add anything to his answer.

TRANSPORT TO THE CAPE.
*SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any delay took place in the despatch from the United Kingdom of troops to South Africa during the month of October, 1899, and, if any such delay did take place, whether the official reports show that it was attributable to causes relating to ships, or to arrangements concerning military forces which the ships were to embark, or to both causes combined; and, in any case, whether experience furnished by the actual test of war during that month confirmed the opinion expressed by Lord Wolseley, on 20th May, 1887, that, in the
1140
event of two army corps and a cavalry division having to be sent abroad, the men could be got ready to be put on board the ships before the ships could be got ready.
MR. BRODRICK: No delay took place either in the preparation of the troops for embarkation or in the provision of the ships by the Admiralty to carry them. It is obvious that, as considerable time must necessarily be required to adapt modern ships to the transport of the large number of horses belonging to an army corps, in that respect alone the troops would be ready before the ships.

COST OF HIRE OF TRANSPORTS.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is now any objection to granting a Return showing the amounts paid for the hire of ships for the transport of troops horses, and stores to South Africa.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): As large engagements for the conveyance of horses and stores are still of almost weekly occurrence, and negotiations are in progress from time to time for the modification of the rates of hire of the transports still employed, it would not be advantageous to the public service at present to publish the terms of hire and freight.

SCOTTISH LAW AGENTS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether steps have been taken to draw the attention of the Governments of the Cape and Natal Colonies to the state of the law in regard to the admission of Scottish law agents as solicitors in the respective colonies; will he consider the desirability of all Scottish lawyers being admitted on the same terms as solicitors in the Supreme Court and writers to the signet; and will he state the nature of any replies which may have been received from these Governments on the subject.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The practice in both the Cape Colony and Natal is, I

1141
understand, to admit Scottish law agents who are entitled to practise before the Court of Session. I have called the attention of the Governor of Natal to the fact that the law and the practice appear to be at variance on this point, but have not as yet received any reply.

57TH BUCKS IMPERIAL YEOMANRY—OTLEY CONTINGENT.
MR. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that some of the wives and families of men who two months ago joined the Yeomanry, and who are now with C Company of the 9th Section of the Field Force in South Africa, are destitute, none of them having received any of the pay assigned to them, and if he can say when some payment will be made.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): It is presumed that the hon. Member is referring to the men enlisted in the Otley district for the 57th Bucks Company of Imperial Yeomanry. In some cases payment has already been made, and in the others instructions have been given to the Station Paymaster, Oxford, to pay the allowances due to their families.

WELSH REGIMENT—VOLUNTEER COMPANY.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Members of the Volunteer Corps of the Welsh Regiment who have served in and recently returned from South Africa were discharged from active service on 3rd May; whether their pay ceased on 28th April; if so, why are not they to receive pay until the date of their discharge; and why are they not accorded treatment similar to that accorded to the City Imperial Volunteers.
LORD STANLEY: These Volunteers have been paid up to the 3rd May, and not up to the 28th April only, as stated by the hon. Member in the question. In reply to the third paragraph of the question, it is not clear to what the hon. Member refers.

ROYAL GARRISON BATTALION AT MALTA—MARRIED QUARTERS.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what is the establishment of the Royal Garrison Battalion to be stationed in Malta, and what is its actual strength; how many of the men are married, how many children have they, and how many married quarters are available; and what provision will be made, and where, for the families who cannot be quartered in barracks.
LORD STANLEY: The establishment is 1,012 of all ranks, and the present strength 827. The exact figures of the numbers of wives and children are not to hand. There are thirty-nine married quarters now available, and thirty more will be available in July. Further arrangements are being made. Those families which cannot be accommodated in quarters will remain in England and be granted separation allowance.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Will the noble Lord make inquiry as to the number of wives and children? This is a very important point.
LORD STANLEY: I am making inquiries, and am sorry not to be able to give the figures to-day.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Can we have them in time for the debate on Monday?
LORD STANLEY: I cannot say.
CAPTAIN NORTON: Can the noble Lord state whether there is any difference as regards the percentage of married men allowed in this regiment as compared with the percentage in ordinary regiments of the Line?
LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir, there is a difference, but I cannot give the actual figures. I think my right hon. friend made them in his statement on the Estimates.

INNISKILLING MILITIA.
MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War

1143
whether, in view of the fact that the 5th Battalion of the Inniskilling Militia have been in training at Dover for almost a year, and that the men of the battalion have recently expressed themselves in favour of immediate disembodiment, that a memorandum was sent from the depot at Omagh to the battalion asking if the regiment wished to stay for the annual training, and that only a few of the men and a couple of officers recently joined expressed their assent, and that few of the men whose time is expired have reengaged, on the ground of the hardship of being kept at training for so long a period, and also on the ground that the men, who are largely drawn from the farming classes in the counties of Tyrone and Donegal, will suffer loss by being absent from the putting in of their crop and from their farming operations—he will take a plebiscite of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the battalion as to their desire or otherwise for disembodiment; and, if the majority is in favour of this course, will he order its disembodiment.
LORD STANLEY: I must refer the hon. Member to a reply given on the 25th April to a similar question put by the hon. Member for South Donegal.†
MR. M'FADDEN: The noble Lord has not answered the question as to the representations made by the men.
LORD STANLEY: Yes; I think I answered the question fully on 25th April.
MR. M'FADDEN: It was not to the same effect as this.
LORD STANLEY: I have nothing to do with that.

DONEGAL MILITIA.
MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary for State for War whether he can state how many recruits have joined the Donegal Militia since the transfer of the training quarters and barracks from Lifford to Ballyshannon in the year 1899; whether he is aware that in the year 1898 some 120 recruits
† See preceding volume, page 1300.
1144
joined the battalion, and for some years previous while the battalion was trained at Lifford the yearly average number of recruits was sixty-five; and whether, in view of the diminution, in the number of recruits joining the battalion since its transfer to Ballyshannon, the War Office will consider the advisability of having the training held at Lifford for the future.
LORD STANLEY: In reply to the first paragraph, there were seventy-two recruits in 1899 and fifty-four in 1900. In reply to the second paragraph, the average number was more than sixty-five. In regard to the third paragraph, there does not appear to be adequate grounds for the re-transfer of the training to Lifford. Ballyshannon has approximately six times the population of Lifford.

DECEASED MILITIAMEN'S KITS.
SIR ROBERT GUNTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in cases where militiamen in South Africa die from enteric fever, and their kits are burned by order, any compensation will be given to the widow or next-of-kin.
LORD STANLEY: Compensation in kind or money for losses incurred on service is only granted for the purpose of enabling the officers or men who have lost their equipment through unavoidable causes to re-equip themselves for further service, and cannot therefore be regarded as an asset of the estate.

MILITIA HELMETS.
SIR ROBERT GUNTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, when militia helmets are found unserviceable in South Africa, they are replaced by felt hats, as in other branches of the service.
LORD STANLEY: Large supplies of felt hats have been sent to South Africa for the disposal of Lord Kitchener, and the question of replacing the militia helmets by these rests entirely with him.

MILITIA ON ACTIVE SERVICE.
MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed, and, if so, when, to relieve

1145
the militia regiments now serving more than a year in South Africa.
LORD STANLEY: I have at present nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a similar question put by my hon. friend the Member for the Darwen Division of Lancashire on the 23rd April.†

YOUTHFUL SOLDIERS.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of men in the Regular Army who, on 1st January, 1899, were returned as under the age of nineteen; the number of those returned as under the age of twenty; and the number of those who had been enlisted as specials.
LORD STANLEY: The numbers under nineteen years of age were 16,892, and under twenty were 36,878. During 1898 there were 12,983 men enlisted as specials, and on the 1st January, 1899, 59 per cent. of these had reached standard.

DISCHARGES FROM THE ARMY
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state with reference to the ten years ending 31st December, 1898, how many men, under seven years service, were discharged from the Regular Army as unfit for further service (excluding those disabled by injuries received in the performance of their duties, or by wounds incurred on active service); the total amount paid in pensions to men thus discharged; the average number of yearly enlistments in the Regular Army; and the average number of transfers to the Reserve.
MR. BRODRICK: The average number of yearly enlistments in the Regular Army was 34,122. The average number of transfers to the Reserve was 15,764. I fear I cannot at present throw upon the War Office and Chelsea Hospital the very heavy work required to obtain answers to the other questions put by the
† See preceding volume, page 1065.
1146
hon. and gallant Member. In both establishments the pressure due to the large number of invalids returning from South Africa, whose cases should be promptly dealt with, is very great.

PRIVATE SOLDIERS' PAY.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state in what year the pay of the British private soldier was fixed at 1s. a day, and also when the initial pay of the infantry subaltern was fixed at 5s. 3d. a day.
MR. BRODRICK: The rate of 1s. for the private dates from 25th May, 1797, when the soldier had to find all his food out of it. A rate of 1s. has been traced to the time of Richard Cromwell, but it was shortly afterwards reduced. The pay of the subaltern was fixed at 5s. 3d. on the 25th June, 1806. I may mention that at the time of the battle of Agincourt the pay of the archers was 6d. a day, but they did not always get it.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Was not 6d. a day at the time of the battle of Agincourt equal to 5s. at the present day?
CAPTAIN NORTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the British soldier first received 1s. per day in addition to the amount of food he receives, now?
MR. BRODRICK: I think the hon. Member had better put that question down.

HAGUE CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government accept the resolutions of the Hague Conference relating to the conduct of war as binding upon this country in every war with a civilised Power.
MR. BRODRICK: This Government accepts the principle to which it gave its assent at the Hague Conference.

WAR OFFICE CLERK AS COMPANY PROMOTER.
MR. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of R. Stephenson and Company, Limited, before the Lancashire Chancery Court of Liverpool, on 30th April and 1st May last, in which a clerk at the War Office figures as a company promoter, carrying on business in Victoria Street, London, and three clerks and a lady typewriter (all said to be in his employ) figure as signatories to the memorandum of a company formed by him to purchase for £22,000 a butcher's and meat importer's business in Liverpool bought by him for £8,208; and whether It is in accordance with the regulations of the War Office that one of its clerks should be so carrying on business.
LORD STANLEY: The gentleman in question left the War Office in 1897.

WEST AFRICAN REGIMENT—COOMASSIE MUTINEERS.
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that about a dozen of the mutineers of the West African Regiment were shot and 128 sent as prisoners to Sierra Leone, he will state whether these troops committed any offence beyond leaving Coomassie two months after the period of their engagement there had ended.
MR. BRODRICK: I am not in a position to reply to the question without a full report of the circumstances, which has not yet arrived.
MR. LOUGH: Is the report of the execution true?
MR. BRODRICK: I have no information at present beyond that I have given to the hon. Member.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman cable for the information?
MR. BRODRICK: I have done so.

NAVY VICTUALLING COMMITTEE.
*SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into victualling has yet reported; and, if so, will such Report be laid upon the Table before the Victualling Vote is taken.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The Report reached the Admiralty to-day. The subject is a large one, and the Report will require very careful consideration by the Admiralty. I can make no promise as to when the Report will be laid on the Table.

WATER TUBE BOILERS—H.M.S. "MEDUSA."
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what indicated horse-power is to be taken out of the engines of H.M.S. "Medusa," after being fitted with the eight Dürr water-tube boilers ordered from Germany; and what consumption of fuel is guaranteed per indicated horse-power over a full speed test of time equal to her bunker capacity of coal tons.
MR. PRETYMAN: The horse-power guaranteed for the engines of the "Medusa" is 7,500 for a period of eight hours. The consumption of fuel per horse-power has not been guaranteed, but it is one of the objects of the Committee's experiments to obtain all particulars on this point.

NEW ROYAL YACHT.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the repairs and alterations to the new Royal yacht were the subject of a tabulated estimate, or have they been carried out without any estimate of ultimate cost; if the former, what was the amount of the estimate; if the latter, by whose orders was the work entered upon without the cost being known.
MR. PRETYMAN: Tabular statements of all alterations which were found to be necessary from time to time have been submitted, and detailed estimates

1149
of cost made out in connection with them. The total of these estimates cannot yet be given with certainty, as some of them have not yet been approved, and the work to which they relate has not been authorised. The authority to proceed with the work has been given by the Admiralty.
MR. FLYNN: Is there to be no limit placed on the expenditure on this Royal yacht?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to laying on the Table a tabulated statement of the estimated cost for this year?
MR. PRETYMAN: I should like to have notice of that.

BOER PRISONERS—INTERNMENT IN INDIA.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of the Bombay sappers have arrived at Ahmednagar, and are putting up a high barbed wire entanglement to inclose the iron roofed huts in which Boer prisoners are to be detained; can he say why the Boer prisoners are to be lodged in iron-roofed huts; what is the necessity for the barbed wire entanglement, and upon whose authority it has been erected.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I have not received any information of the nature referred to, but I have no doubt the military authorities in India will carry out the wishes of His Majesty's Government by providing suitable accommodation for the prisoners and by taking proper precautions against their escape.
MR. DILLON: May I ask if the wire entanglement is part of the suitable accommodation?
LORD G. HAMILTON: It is part of the precautions taken against escape, and similar precaution was taken when English, Irish, and Scotch soldiers were prisoners of war at Pretoria.
MR. DILLON: War does not prevail in India.

PEASANT INDEBTEDNESS IN INDIA.
MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report and Appendices thereto on Peasant Indebtedness and Land Alienations to Money Lenders in parts of the Rawal Pindi Division, made by Mr. S. S. Thorburn, Commissioner of that division, dated 1st May, 1896.
LORD G. HAMILTON: The Report and Appendices to which the hon. Member refers are very lengthy, and could not be published except as part of a correspondence which, as a whole, would form a bulky volume. I do not think that I should be justified in laying it upon the Table of the House, but I shall be prepared to let the hon. Member see a copy if he wishes it.
MR. CAINE: I do not wish to put the Department to unnecessary expense. The document need not be printed, if it is laid so that hon. Members may see it.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I think I can do that.

THE BAHR-EL-GHAZEL.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to proposed proceedings of the Société Générale Africaine, in which the Congo State appears to be interested, within the portion of the Bahr-el-Ghazel which was renounced by France at the time of the Fashoda incident, and which appears to be claimed as though the Agreement of 1894 were in force with regard to the whole of the Bahr-el-Ghazel, in spite of the United Kingdom not having been placed in possession of the territories to be leased to His Majesty's Government by the Congo State, and whether any negotiations are taking place on the subject.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of the proceedings referred to by the right hon. Baronet. The question

1151
of our position in respect of the leased territories has been the subject of communications between His Majesty's Government and that of the Congo State.

RUSSIAN CONCESSIONS IN PERSIA.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table copies of the recent reports received from the British Minister at Teheran communicating the extent and conditions of the concessions granted in the years 1898, 1899, and 1900 by His Imperial Majesty the Shah to Russian financial syndicates for the purpose of constructing railways, opening banks, and building harbours in the Persian dominions.
* VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have received no such reports.

BRITISH COMMERCIAL AGENTS ABROAD.
*MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the amount which has been received in fees by the commercial agents in Russia, Switzerland, United States, and Central America respectively; and whether it is intended to extend the system of appointing such agents to countries where at present there are none.
*VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The following sums have been received at the Foreign Office on account of fees levied by commercial agents:—Russia, £13 18s.; Switzerland, nil; United States, £3 6s.; Central America, £1 1s.; total, £18 5s. The commercial agents were appointed for an experimental period of two years, rather more than half of which period has expired. It can hardly yet be decided whether the duties which the agents have performed, not only by services payable by fees, but also by preparing general reports on commercial matters, are of sufficient utility to warrant the continuance or the extension of these appointments.
*MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Can the noble Lord say whether there has
1152
been any report from any of these agents except from the one in Switzerland?
*VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I cannot without inquiry.

BRITISH POST OFFICES IN TURKEY.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has been received from our Ambassador regarding the future of the British post offices in Turkey, and whether he has any information to the effect that the Turkish Government has suppressed these post offices or intends, to do so.
* VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No proposal respecting the future of the British post offices in Turkey has been received from His Majesty's Ambassador. The offices have not been suppressed. The Turkish Government stated last year in the course of correspondence respecting, the British post office at Salonica that they contemplated the eventual suppression of the foreign post offices, and were informed that His Majesty's Government would be ready to take into consideration any well considered proposals for the withdrawal of the foreign post offices as soon as the Turkish postal system was found to be working satisfactorily in practice, provided that the withdrawal of the British post offices should be conditional on similar action by other Powers.
MR. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Turkish Government have recently given notice that all mails destined for foreign post offices in Turkey will in the future be opened in the presence of the customs authorities and distributed by them: and whether he will take steps to regain a privilege hitherto enjoyed by Englishmen resident in Turkey.
* VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have not seen any notice of the nature referred to, but they have been informed that the Ottoman authorities intercepted and distributed

1153
the contents of all the mail bags addressed to the foreign post offices at Constantinople on Sunday last. The despatch of the outgoing mails was also prevented. It has since been ascertained that the incoming mails will be allowed to pass as heretofore, but not the outgoing ones. His Majesty's Ambassador has joined in a formal protest which the Embassies at Constantinople have made against these proceedings.

CHINA—REPORTED FIRING BY GERMAN TROOPS ON A BRITISH BOAT.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND:: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received any information as to the firing by German troops upon a British boat in China; and, if not, whether he will make inquiries into this matter.
*VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No. If the incident referred to in the newspapers actually took place, and had been of importance, his Majesty's representatives in China would certainly have reported it by telegraph. It is not proposed to make inquiry.

CHINA—OPENING UP OF TRADE.
MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received any communication from the Chinese Government respecting the opening of China to the trade of the world; and, if so, what reply has been sent.
* VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No communication of this nature has been received by His Majesty's Government either from the United States or the Chinese Governments.

FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION OF AUSTRALIA.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Hopetoun, in sending in the first instance for Sir William Lyne to form the first Federal Administration of Australia, although Mr. Barton, who eventually became the first Prime Minister, was designated for the position by public opinion, was acting on his own initiative or on the advice of the Colonial Office.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Lord Hopetoun acted on his own initiative in this matter, but I have since approved his action.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And the colony has disapproved of his action.

MALTA—THE LANGUAGE QUESTION.
MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Maltese Government has partially closed some of the public schools in Malta in consequence of the refusal of the elected representatives of the Maltese people to grant supplies to those schools in which the substitution of English for Italian had taken place, and that a number of students have, in consequence, been deprived of educational facilities; whether the Government intends to persist in a policy which is viewed with such opposition by the Maltese people, and will he state when he is prepared to lay before the House the correspondence that has taken place on the language question.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The facts are not correctly stated in the question. I have already stated that I have no reason to believe that the Maltese people are opposed to the policy of the Government with regard to language, since nearly 99½ per cent. have opted for English in preference to Italian in the elementary schools. The latest information will be found in the Papers which are now being prepared, which will I hope be laid before Whitsuntide.
MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a public meeting, at which 30,000 persons are reported to have been present, was held in Malta on the 3rd instant to protest against the language ordinances; and whether, in view of this strong expression of popular discontent, the ordinances in question will be abrogated.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received no information of any such meeting, but I have asked the Governor to report.

GIBRALTAR—SANITATION AND RECREATION GROUNDS.
MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now able to communicate to the House the steps taken to provide recreation grounds for the naval and military forces stationed at Gibraltar, to improve the sanitary system in the garrison, and to secure that the leases of Crown lands shall not in future be granted to speculative builders and financial syndicates.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a report from the Governor, which will be presented to Parliament, on recent improvements in Gibraltar in respect of sanitary and other matters. This report deals with the first two points referred to by the hon. Member; as to the third point, I have to refer him to my answer given to a similar question put by him on the 5th February, 1900, in which I stated that I had no information as to any Crown leases having been granted to syndicates of building speculators and rackrenters, and that the practice had always been, if possible, to renew leases to the former holders.

JAMAICA—LOANS.
*MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the Colonial Loans Act, 1899, and to the fact that the advance made to Jamaica under that Act on 14th April, 1900, ranks as a charge on the general revenue and assets of the colony in priority to the inscribed stock required to be given with arrears of interest in satisfaction of liabilities contracted by the Jamaica Government in respect of the Jamaica railway, whether he can state at what date the said inscribed stock and arrears of interest were found to be due, and on what principle such priority is determined; and whether the Government of Jamaica has received under the Colonial Loans Act, 1899, any advances which rank after the inscribed stock referred to; if so, at what dates, for what purposes, and to what amounts.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The inscribed stock and arrears of interest were found to be due by the decree of the
1156
supreme court on 11th April, 1900. The inscribed stock did not become a charge on the revenues of Jamaica till the issue of the advertisement by the Crown agents calling for the railway bonds to be sent in to be exchanged for inscribed stock. The subsequent advances under the Colonial Loans Act, which rank after the inscribed stock, are £65,000 on 21st July, 1900, for Kingston improvements and waterworks; £20,000 on 31st July, 1900, to meet deficit on general revenue; and £22,000 on 13th March, 1901, for railway purposes.

ASHANTI—NATIVE RISING—DEPORTATION OF RINGLEADERS.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether on 24th March the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast passed through all its stages in one sitting a Bill providing for the deportation of the chiefs and headmen of Ashanti; and, if so, what is the object of the Bill, and whether it has received his assent.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information to the effect indicated in the hon. Member's question. His Majesty's Government have, however, approved of the deportation of the principal ringleaders in the recent rising.

DUTY ON JOINT STOCK CAPITAL.
SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what was the amount of duty realised on the joint stock capital issued under the Companies Acts last year, and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of enhancing the impost to which it is at present liable, being only one-eighth per cent. on the incorporation of the companies.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): The amount of companies' capital duty realised during the year ended 31st March, 1901, was £618,975 10s. The present rate of duty is 5s. for every £100 of nominal share capital, or one quarter of one per cent., not one-eight per cent. as stated in the question. The duty was

1157
raised from 2s. per cent. to 5s. per cent. as recently as 1899 (Finance Act, 1899, Section 7), and I am not at present disposed to propose to increase it.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DINAS POWIS JUSTICES.
MR. WHITTAKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the statements made at Cardiff by an owner of public-houses in the course of his public examination in bankruptcy, in which he disclosed certain financial transactions and relations between himself and two justices of the peace for the Division of Dinas Powis, in the county of Glamorgan; whether he is aware that those justices had acted and voted at general annual licensing meetings at which applications were made for various licences in which the said bankrupt was interested, and that on 22nd December last the justices of the peace for the said Division of Dinas Powis, having been called together to consider the disclosures made and the action of their two colleagues in thus acting and voting, passed a resolution condemning such conduct, and whether any steps have been taken or will be taken by the Lord Chancellor to remove from the bench the two justices whose conduct has been thus formally censured by their colleagues.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I have had this matter brought before me, and have no reason to doubt that the facts are as stated. As my hon. friend is aware, the question in the last paragraph is one which concerns the Lord Chancellor, under whose notice the matter has, as I understand, already come.

JURY CHALLENGES.
*MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return for the past thirty years, showing the number of cases in England in which jurors were told to stand aside by the Crown; the number of jurors set aside in each case, their religion, and the religion of the prisoners, and the offences with which they were charged.
*MR. RITCHIE: There are no materials upon which such a Return could be based.
*MR. DELANY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the whole of his experience he has heard of such a case?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

PRISON REGULATIONS—MR. STEAD'S CASE.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a letter from Mr. W. T. Stead, which has been published, in which he asserts that when imprisoned in Holloway Gaol in 1885 he continuously edited and conducted the Pall Mall Gazette just as if he had been in his office, except that he was forbidden to write upon the matter which led to his incarceration; and, if so, whether he will state exactly what the privileges in the matter of editing and conducting his paper were sanctioned by the visiting justices of Holloway Gaol and recorded in the prison, and whether he is now prepared to give any further information to the House on the matter.
*MR. RITCHIE: I gave the hon. Member on Monday last the information for which he now asks.†
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: My recollection is that the question was not answered.
*MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I said it was a question what constituted the editing of a paper. Mr. Stead was placed under certain rules, and if he says that he was able to properly manage his paper under such conditions I am quite prepared to accept his statement.

VIVISECTION RETURNS.
MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when he will lay before the House the Return of Experiments on Living Animals for the year 1900.
*MR. RITCHIE: As I stated a week ago, I hope that this Return will be published before the end of this month.
† See page 778.

WEST SUSSEX POLICE RESERVE.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has been able to look into the question of altering the law so as to enable county authorities to establish a reserve class of police officers from those who have become entitled to retire on a pension, application for his approval of a scheme for which purpose was made by the Standing Joint Committee of the County of West Sussex on the 1st May, 1900, and further consideration promised in the letter from the Home Office of 27th October last; whether he is aware that schemes for this purpose are in operation in Liverpool and in some other county boroughs where the approval of the Secretary of State is not requisite, and whether he will bring in a Bill in the present session to put county police authorities on the same footing in this respect as borough police authorities are.
*MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir, I have considered this question, and though I do not see my way to promote legislation to facilitate the establishment of reserve forces of police, I have prepared a Bill for the purpose of removing a difficulty which, I understand, at present stands in the way of constables continuing in a force after they have become entitled to retire on a pension. I am afraid that I cannot promise to introduce the Bill this session.

MANNING OF THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the number of ships lost from time to time through being improperly manned, the Board of Trade will make a rule that no sailing ship shall go to sea without at least three-fourths of her crew being proved able seamen.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): No, Sir, I do not think such a rule would be reasonable. I may observe that, although courts of inquiry have from time to time expressed various opinions as to the adequacy or otherwise of the crews of vessels lost, the Board of
1160
Trade have no record of a case in which the court has found undermanning to be the actual cause of loss.
MR. JOYCE: Will the Board of Trade try in future to have a fair percentage of British seamen shipped in British ships?
* MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
MR. JOYCE: I will put down a question, then.

S.S. "KELBURN"—TREATMENT OF INJURED SEAMAN—COMPENSATION PROVISION.
MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the accident which occurred to a seaman, named Ernest Franklin, now an inmate of the Hamidryad Hospital, Cardiff, who received a spinal injury on board the sailing ship "Kelburn" on the morning that the vessel left Cardiff for Cape Town, from the fall of a large quantity of mooring chain; that, although the seaman repeatedly requested the captain to send him ashore in the tow boat, he was kept on board for over three months; whether he is aware that, on the arrival of the vessel at Cape Town, the man was detained in hospital until the 13th March, and then sent to Southampton in charge of the doctor of the steamship "Dunvegan Castle"; also that he has written to the owner asking for some compensation, and that the owner has failed to acknowledge these letters; also that the Secretary to the Seamen's Union has addressed a further communication to the owner pointing out the serious nature of the man's injury, but has received no answer; whether the Board of Trade intends to ask the owner to grant compensation to this seamen; and whether they intend at an early date to introduce legislation to compel shipowners to pay compensation to seamen for injuries as employers on shore have to pay their workmen.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member's question is the first intimation I have received of the case to which he refers. I am making inquiries in the

1161
matter, and am in communication with the owners of the "Kelburn." I am not in a position to give any undertaking at the present moment with regard to the legislation suggested in the last paragraph of the question.

COST OF COAL PRODUCTION.
MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can inform the House of the estimate he made of the average cost per ton of coal produced in 1897, for all expenses other than miners' wages; and whether his estimate of cost per ton included the charge in respect of royalties and way-leaves.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have made no such estimate as is referred to in the question. My statement of the value at the pit's mouth of coal raised in various years was based on the Home Office statistics. The average increase of coalowners' expenses since 1897 would not be materially affected by royalties.
MR. M'KENNA: The right hon. Gentleman said the expenses other than wages had increased 6d. in three years. How did he get the figures except from an official estimate?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is not the question on the Paper.
MR. M'KENNA: How did the right hon. Gentleman estimate the increase unless he knew what the original amount was?
[No answer was returned.]

BOUNTIES ON SAILING SHIPS.
MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the bounties on sailing ships will be inquired into by the Select Committee to be appointed under the motion of the hon. Member for Aston Manor; and, if not, whether he will take steps to allow the inquiry to be extended so as to include them, and thus complete the investigation as to foreign bounties on shipping generally.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no objection to the principle of the pro
1162
posal, which has been pressed on me by other hon. Members. As a matter of fact, the House has already settled the reference, and it cannot be altered without further action on the part of the House. I think the best course would be to appoint the Committee under the reference as it stands, and then, if the hon. Member moves an Instruction extending that reference, no opposition will be offered by me.

SUGAR DUTY—BOARD OF TRADE RETURNS.
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can arrange to state in the Board of Trade Monthly Returns henceforth the quantity of sugar paying duty under each degree of the polariscopic scale.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The future classification of sugar in the Monthly and Annual Trade Accounts is now being considered by the Board of Trade and Customs.

RABIES.
COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the average monthly number of cases of rabies in dogs reported in the year immediately preceding the date on which the Regulations issued by this Department came into effect, and the number of cases reported monthly at the present time.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): In 1895 there were 672 cases of rabies, in 1896 there were 438, in 1900 there were 6, and in 1901, up to 4th May, there was 1.

RETURN OF DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS.
MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can say when the Return relating to subscriptions to denominational schools, which he informed Mr. Maddison (on 20th February, 1900) was in contemplation, was issued, or will be issued.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The Return was in the hands of the printers last August. It is hoped it may be in the hands of hon. Members before the end of this year.

PUBLIC CLOCKS IN RURAL POST OFFICES.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, for the public convenience, steps will be taken to provide clocks in rural post offices visible from the outside.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): In the case of a post office provided by the Department a clock is usually placed in the window to enable the public to know when the clearances of the letter box are made; but in the case of a small office provided by the sub-postmaster, usually in connection with a private business, it is not the practice to require him to incur the expense of providing and maintaining an outside clock. Having regard to the large number of such offices and to the cost that would be involved in providing and maintaining an outside clock in each of them, the Postmaster General regrets that he would not be justified in proposing to alter the present practice.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I will draw attention to this question on the Estimates.

PARCELS POST DELIVERIES IN LONDON.
MR. FORDE RIDLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will inform the House under what rule of the Post Office for the regulation of its business the London overseers impose upon letter-carriers the delivery of large and heavy parcels; whether there have been complaints from the Bethnal Green branch, and, if so, will he give instructions for an investigation of them; and whether there is any reason why hand-carts should not be used in that district to assist in the delivery of parcels, as in
1164
other districts of London; and, it there is not any reason, will he give instructions for such hand-carts to be supplied for that district.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The rule is that heavy or cumbersome parcels are not to be taken out for delivery with letters, but that a postman shall take out with his letters, if necessary, not more than five parcels of reasonable size and of an aggregate weight of eleven pounds, subject, however, to his total burden not being increased to more than thirty-five pounds. Complaint was made by a Bethnal Green postman on the 30th March last that he had been given six parcels, and that his total burden at starting was thirty-six pounds. This was immediately inquired into, and the rule laid down has since been strictly adhered to. Handcarts are provided at Bethnal Green, and are used when the weight of parcels to be delivered renders it necessary. The postmen engaged on parcel delivery prefer, however, to do without hand-carts when they can, so as to avoid the necessity of returning to the office with the empty cart after completing the delivery.

CUSTOMS WATCHER'S GRIEVANCES.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say when the Customs watcher may expect to receive the result of the consideration of the Treasury on the following questions which were brought before the late Secretary to the Treasury at the inquiry he held in May, 1900, and which matters have not been dealt with in the Treasury letter 13,833, dated 18th August, 1900—namely, the adjustment of the hours question, overtime payment, annual leave, and annual supply of uniform, a pension in lieu of the bonus now granted after fifteen years service, and when the seniority list of Customs watchers will be issued.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: All the points mentioned by the hon. Member have been fully considered by the Treasury, and I can hold out no hope of any concessions beyond those already made.

CROFTER HOLDINGS IN THE HIGHLANDS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether all the lands which have been acquired by the Congested Districts Board were scheduled by the Highlands and Islands Commission as suitable for the formation of crofter holdings; and, if not, will he state the acreage of the lands not so scheduled, and the districts in which they are respectively situated.
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that all the land purchased by them was scheduled by the Highlands and Islands Commission as suitable for the formation or extension of crofter holdings.

HIGHLAND RAILWAY VALUATION.
MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether his attention has been called to the valuation of the Highland Railway undertaking, so far as within the county of Caithness, which has fallen from £7,730 in 1895–6 to £735 for the current year; whether he is aware that under the statutes the railway stations have a preferential claim on the valuation to the extent of five per cent. on their cost, the result, as regards the county of Caithness, being that the whole amount of the valuation for the current year falls to be applied to the stations (which even then will only give 4.7 per cent. on their cost), making the valuation of the thirty-eight miles of railway line within the county nil; and whether His Majesty's Government will reconsider the question of the deductions allowed to railway companies by the valuation statutes, so as to admit of a more equitable assessment as between railway stations and railway lines.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The answer to the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As I have already replied in this House, the whole subject of railway valuation in Scotland, including the points referred to by the hon. Member, is engaging the attention of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation.

SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD—PURCHASE IN CROFTING COUNTIES.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state how many acres of land have been acquired by the Congested Districts Board in each of the crofting counties for the settlement of the people.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that 12,116 acres in Sutherland-shire and 3,000 in Inverness-shire, have been purchased by them. This does not include land on which the proprietors, with the help of the Board, have formed new holdings, the exact figures of which are not available.

CATTLE BREEDING IN THE ISLAND OF LEWIS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that on 11th April the Congested Districts Board informed Mr. Malcolm McLeod, of Borroston, Uig, Island of Lewis, that the Board were unable to comply with the request of the township of Borroston for a bull, as the number of applications received by the Board far exceeded the number of bulls at their disposal; and seeing that the Board had already arranged that a bull should be sent in May to the township of Carloway, a few miles away, will he state why this fact was not explained to the people of Borroston, who were led to suppose from the letter which they received from the Board that a bull would not be available for their township.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The answer to the hon. Member is that there was no bull at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board when the application from Borroston was made. As explained to the hon. Member in my former answer, a bull had been promised to Carloway in February for the month of May, and no explanation of the fact seemed called for to a correspondent who dated his letter Borroston, Carloway, and asked for a bull in April.
MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the bull sent to Carloway shall be available for the township of Borroston, which is only three or four miles distant?
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: That must depend on local circumstances, with which the hon. Member is perhaps better acquainted than I am. It is a question whether the bull will have leisure.
MR. WEIR: There is a large population at Borroston. Will the Secretary for Scotland provide a bull which will have leisure? I shall raise this question on the Estimates.

SCOTTISH FISHERY REGULATIONS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, in view of his statement that the sea area off the west coast of Scotland is not within the sea area controlled by the North Sea Convention, 1882, will he state whether the Fishery Board for Scotland has power under Section 10 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, to make bye-laws extending the limits within which beam and otter trawling off the west coast of Scotland shall be declared to be illegal, and, if the Fishery Board has no such powers, will he take such steps as may be necessary to enable the Board to make a bye-law extending the three-mile limit off the west coast of Scotland.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. As regards the second paragraph, this could not be done without legislation.

LANARK SHERIFF.
MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that, by the terms of Sheriff Scott Moncrieff's appointment, he is bound to reside at Lanark, as his predecessor did. Will he explain on what grounds the Secretary for Scotland has allowed him to break the terms of this arrangement and to reside in Glasgow for one year; and whether this permission can now be withdrawn, and steps taken that the terms of the sheriff's commission are observed, and that he will reside in or near Lanark.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: It is usual to insert in a sheriff-substitute's commission a direction as to where he is
1168
to reside. But such direction can at any time be altered by the Secretary for Scotland. Sheriff Scott Moncrieff was appointed to Lanark from Inverness last year. On coming to take up his appointment he found it impossible at the moment to secure a suitable residence, and communicated the fact to the Secretary for Scotland, The Secretary for Scotland satisfied himself that this was so, and in the circumstances granted him permission to reside in Glasgow, where most of his court work is, for a period of one year. It is hoped by that time that he will be able to secure accommodation at Lanark.

CONGESTION IN THE HIGHLANDS—SUGGESTED LEGISLATION.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Deer Forest Commissioners scheduled nearly 2,000,000 acres of land in the Highland crofting counties suitable for occupation by the people, and seeing that the Congested Districts Board have proved themselves quite unable to meet the requirements of the people in regard to the land, he will say what steps he proposes to take to admit of the land being again occupied by crofters, cottars, and fisher men.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I cannot admit the imputation made by the hon. Gentleman upon the Congested Districts Board, neither am I prepared to introduce legislation to increase the facilities already given as regards the acquisition of land in the congested districts in Ireland.
MR. WEIR: Am I in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that five years ago he expressed a great desire to extend these facilities? Will he reconsider the reply he has given?
[No answer was returned.]

AFFORESTRY IN WALES.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the area of the land in Wales recently acquired by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for

1169
afforesting; and what progress has been made with the work of planting.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The area of the land acquired in 1899 (a portion of which is available for planting) is 387 acres 3 roods 3 poles. Particulars will be found in Appendix No. 29 to the 78th Report to Parliament of the Commissioners of Woods, etc., and in the second paragraph on page 9 of the Report. About 40 acres have up to the present been planted, and it is intended to plant a further area each year for several years to come.

STORNOWAY MAILS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a contract has yet been signed with the North British Railway Company for the conveyance of the Stornoway mails via Mallaig; and, if not, will he explain the cause of the delay.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No contract has been made with the North British Railway Company for the conveyance of mails over the new railway between Fort William and Mallaig, and no agreement has been arrived at as to the terms on which the line is to continue to be used. According to the present time-table no advantage would result from the transmission of mails for Stornoway from Mallaig, and the severance of the connection at Kyle with the Highland Railway would be the reverse of beneficial. In the other direction mails from Stornoway for the south are being conveyed to Mallaig, and the delivery of the letters in Glasgow and Edinburgh is thus considerably accelerated.

IRISH TAXATION RETURNS.
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Returns granted on the 19th March with regard to Irish taxation will be furnished before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is taken.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The ordinary Returns cannot be compiled in final form for some little time to come, the accounts relating to both
1170
revenue and expendit re not having been finally adjusted. But it is hoped to present to the House almost immediately some provisional figures which will probably serve the purposes of hon. Members.

FERMOY POST OFFICE—MEDICAL OFFICER.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the number of medical gentlemen to whom circular letters were sent in June, 1900, inviting formal application for the post of medical officer to the Fermoy Post Office, and how many such applications were made in response; whether the gentleman who has been appointed was invited to apply for the post last June; and, if not, on what date were fresh circulars issued, and how many medical gentlemen were invited to send in fresh applications.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The district surveyor made known in June, 1900, to all the medical gentlemen resident in Fermoy, the total number of whom appears to be four, that there was a vacancy for a medical officer to the post office, and applications were received from two of them only. The gentleman who has been appointed was one of those to whom notice of the vacancy was sent in June, 1900, and no fresh notices have been issued since that date.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Can the hon. Gentleman say why this gratuitous insult has been offered to two medical gentlemen, and who is responsible for it?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to ask why a "gratuitous insult" has been offered. Such a question would not be allowed on the Paper.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: Well, I will ask, then, who is responsible for the decision arrived at with regard to the two applications made in June in response to a circular issued to these gentlemen?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is responsible. I may remind the hon. Member that nothing would have been said about this matter, or about the qualifications of these gentlemen, unless he had put the questions in this House.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: In reply to that, I beg to say that no steps whatever were taken to fill this vacancy, for which applications were issued in June last, until I put the questions down. And, Sir, further—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have allowed the hon. Member to make a short statement in reply to the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, but he cannot go on and argue it.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I will put another question down on the subject.

GUN LICENCES IN KERRY.
*MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that John Bell, a tradesman in Kenmare, county Kerry, has been refused a gun licence by the resident magistrate on the ground that he has no land, although at least nine other persons in the same town who have been granted gun licences have no land; and, seeing that inconvenience has been caused by reason of this refusal to the religious institution in Kenmare which had previously employed John Bell to shoot vermin on its grounds, will he take the necessary steps to have a licence issued in due course.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N., for Mr. WYNDHAM): The discretion of granting or withholding a licence to keep firearms is vested by law in the licensing officer, who is the resident magistrate of the district. In the present case the licensing officer has refused to grant a licence to John Bell. No inconvenience, however, will be caused by this refusal, as the licence has been, or is about to be, issued to another man employed on the convent grounds.
*MR. BOLAND: Was any reason given by the resident magistrate for refusing the licence?
MR. ATKINSON: He only gives reasons to himself.
*MR. BOLAND: Is it not the fact that he wrote to the applicant "I understand you have no land," thus giving reason?

IRISH RAILWAYS AND CANALS.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Viceregal Commission to inquire into and report upon the working of Irish railways and canals.
MR. ATKINSON: My right hon. friend, on Tuesday last, replied to a similar question addressed to him by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division.†

IRISH COUNTY COUNCILS GENERAL COUNCIL.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Local Government (Ireland) Act so as to enable moderate expenses to be allowed for meetings of the general council of county councils, in the same way as expenses are allowed in England to the association of councils under the English Act.
MR. ATKINSON: The matter is under consideration, but the Government cannot give any pledge that it will be dealt with during the present session.

BELFAST VALUATION APPEALS.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the following notice in the Belfast Valuations Book of 1860, to the effect that the whole of the valuations of tenements in the book, being liable to appeal and amendment, are not to be accepted as the settled valuations;
† See page 965.

1173
and that the lists when completed are issued in manuscript only, and may be inspected at the union workhouse or at the office of the city treasurer; whether he is aware that over 7,000 appeals, covering 10,000 ratings, have been forwarded this year to the Commissioner of Valuation; that public meetings of protest against the increases of valuations have been held; and that dissatisfaction prevails owing to the present primary lists having been used by the council of the city of Belfast in striking the current year's rates instead of the final lists as specified in 15 and 16 Vic., c. 63; and whether he can explain why the present Commissioner of Valuation has not followed the precedent of 1860.
MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware whether the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. Such a proceeding would be inapplicable, however, at the present time, as the Adaptation of Irish Enactments Order, 1899, issued under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, provides that the rate is to be struck on the lists as issued by the 1st March, and that if any valuation is afterwards increased on appeal the borough council may make an extra levy on account of it, or, if the valuation is reduced, they shall make a repayment equal to the excess rate paid. The Commissioner of Valuation has, in regard to the borough revaluation, strictly followed the procedure laid down in the Valuation Acts and the statutes amending same.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a resolution was passed at a special meeting of Belfast city council on 25th March asking for a revaluation of the city, making a re-adjustment of valuations so as to place the older properties and valuations on a similar basis to those of more recent date, and stating that the allowance for annual upkeep was insufficient, and that if the present valuation be persisted in it would operate injuriously on the citizens and retard the development of the city, and asking that parties appealing shall be heard by
1174
the valuer, and facility given for appellants giving evidence and expenses of appeals be thereby reduced to a minimum; and whether he will arrange that those facilities be given to appellants.
MR. ATKINSON: The council applied under the 65th section of the Local Government Act for a general revaluation of the rateable hereditaments of the borough. That has been carried out in accordance with statutory provisions. Facilities will be given to those who appealed to put their views before the proper authority prior to the issue of the appeal lists. Precautions will be taken to ensure that this shall be done without incurring unnecessary expense.

DALKEY REGISTRATION REVISION.
MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether arrangements could be made for the holding of a revision court at Dalkey, county Dublin, for the convenience of the voters in that district.
MR. ATKINSON: This proposal has been carefully considered; there do not appear, however, to be sufficient grounds for giving effect to it.
MR. MOONEY: Were representations from the local authorities considered before the decision was come to?
MR. ATKINSON: Yes, Sir; all representations are considered.

PUGH STEWART'S ESTATE, CO. DONEGAL.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the late Arthur Pugh Stewart directed his lands, situate in the Milford Union, county Donegal, to be sold to his tenants; whether, some time ago, it was ordered by the court in which the matter is pending that the lands be sold in accordance with the testator's will; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in completing the sale of this estate to the

1175
tenants; and if steps will be taken by the Irish Government to expedite the said sale.
MR. ATKINSON: I have no information as to the first paragraph. The proceedings now pending in the land judge's court must, however, eventuate in the sale of the lands to the tenants. The Letterkenny and Burton Port Railway Company are taking steps to acquire portion of the lands, and when the negotiations are completed the rental for sale will be settled.

SANITARY OFFICER, LONDONDERRY.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the appointment by the Londonderry corporation, acting as the sanitary authority of the city, of a man named Fletcher to the position of executive sanitary officer of the city of Londonderry; can he state what qualifications has Fletcher for the position and whether, before notifying the appointment, the Local Government Board will direct their medical inspector in the city to examine Fletcher as to his qualification for the position to which the corporation has appointed him.
MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first query is in the affirmative. Inquiries are being made as to the qualifications of the person referred to. It is not the practice of the Board to require persons elected to the office of executive sanitary officer to undergo examination by a medical inspector, but the Board will take such steps as may be necessary to satisfy themselves of Mr. Fletcher's fitness for the post.

IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' INCOMES.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that Irish national teachers were promised that they would suffer no financial loss through the introduction of the new system of education, whether those teachers who taught the principles of agriculture in school farms will have the annual amount thus earned included in
1176
the calculation of their future consolidated incomes; and, if not, whether they will be allowed to teach this subject in future for results; and whether teachers who only taught theoretic agriculture have the amounts thus earned included in the calculation of their consolidated incomes.
MR. ATKINSON: The question of including payments made for instruction in practical agriculture on school farms in the consolidated incomes of the teachers who gave such instruction is still under consideration. The answer to the inquiry at the end of the question is in the affirmative.

RESIDUAL GRANTS.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some teachers in Irish National schools are paid under the old system, including results, capitation grant, balance of residual grant calculated at the end of each year up till March, 1901; whether such teachers are now to be deprived of this residual grant to which they are entitled; and whether the Commissioners are prepared to pay residual grant in proportion to period of financial year 1900–1901 spent under the old system.
MR. ATKINSON: I am informed by the Commissioners that, with the payments made last month, the full payment of residual grant to all teachers was complete.

IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what salary will be paid should the manager of (say) a dozen schools in an Irish-speaking district employ a travelling teacher of Irish for his district to teach both the pupils and the teachers till the latter are competent to do so themselves, and what qualifications will the Commissioners require for such teachers.
MR. ATKINSON: The Commissioners will pay no salary to a teacher of Irish

1177
for instructing national teachers; but, where systematic instruction has been given before or after the regular school hours at least once a week during the school year, and such weekly instruction is of at least one hour's duration, or where similar instruction is given twice a week, each lesson being of half an hour's duration, the teacher, if approved as competent by the inspector, may receive a fee of 10s. for each pupil who has been in bona fide attendance throughout the course in a class which has passed the tests applied by the inspector at the end of the course.

IRISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the practice adopted by the Congested Districts Board as to the finding of tenants for the lands purchased by the Board; do those in the immediate vicinity of the new holdings get a prior claim to them; and, if not, can he say why this course is not followed.
MR. ATKINSON: The primary object the Congested Districts Board have in view is the benefit of the tenants of the lands purchased. The mode of dealing with any other tenants depends in each case upon its peculiar circumstances. No general rule can be adopted or stated.

RIVERSTOWN PETTY SESSIONS—INTIMIDATION CONVICTION.
MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at the petty sessions court recently held in Riverstown, county Sligo, nine young men were sentenced under the Act of Edward the Third to a term of six months imprisonment in default of giving bail, the charge being that they intimidated a man named Lavin by playing loud music when passing his door; whether this same Lavin was charged before the same tribunal with firing two shots from a revolver at a group of men who were passing, and acquitted; and whether he will explain why the Crown did not
1178
bring forward these cases under the ordinary law instead of under the statute referred to.
MR. ATKINSON: Nine men were summoned to Riverstown Petty Sessions on the 2nd instant because they had been members of a disorderly crowd which had intimidated Michael Lavin by groaning, beating drums, and indulging in other offensive noises. They were ordered by the magistrates to provide sureties for their good behaviour, or, in default, to be imprisoned for one month, not six as stated. Three of the defendants gave the required bail, the other six elected to go to prison. Lavin was prosecuted, as stated in the second paragraph, for discharging his revolver at a man named Coulin. The magistrates, however, dismissed the charge, as they were satisfied that Lavin fired the weapon in the air, and merely with the object of frightening his persecutors. In reply to the last paragraph, the hon. Member is under a misapprehension; the proceedings were under the ordinary law.
MR. FLAVIN: Was the direction in which the pistol bullet went identified?
MR. TULLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate his opinion to the magistrates that they should not come from their own districts to try these cases?
MR. O'DOWD: Was the majority of the Bench made up of magistrates-from other petty sessional benches?
[No answer was returned.]

JURY CHALLENGES IN IRELAND.
*MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return, covering the past thirty years, showing the number of criminal cases in Ireland in which jurors were told to stand aside by the Crown, the number and religion of those jurors set aside, the religion of the prisoners, and the offences with which they were charged.
MR. ATKINSON: The religion of jurors ordered to stand aside is not re-corded or even inquired into, nor are any records kept which would enable me to answer the first part of the question. The religion of prisoners might be ascertained, but not of persons admitted to bail. The Return asked for on this latter head would involve considerable trouble, and no good purpose would be served by it.
*MR. DELANY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a Return covering the period of which the present Government have been in office?
MR. ATKINSON: I have said that no records are kept.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is there not a certain Crown Prosecutor at Dublin Castle—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
*MR. DELANY: Are any jurors except Catholics challenged?
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman pledge his honour to the House that he does not know—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question on the Paper has been answered.

IRISH INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
*MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return showing the number of industrial schools in Ireland, the persons in whom these schools are vested, the cost of erection, and from what source that cost has been met.
MR. ATKINSON: Industrial schools are private, not public, institutions, as the hon. Member apparently supposes. The managers of these schools applied for certificates from the Chief Secretary authorising them to receive and retain children committed under the Industrial Schools Act. There are seventy such schools in Ireland, but the Government
1180
have no information on the other matters mentioned, nor have they any right to call for it from the managers.
*MR. DELANY: Have these schools not been erected under the Board of Works?
MR. ATKINSON: The owners or managers may have obtained loans from the Board of Works, but the Board has no authority to erect schools.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY AND EVICTED FARMS.
*MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the names and rank of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary whose families are in possession of evicted farms in Ireland, and the situation and area of those farms.
MR. ATKINSON: No useful public purpose would be served by supplying this information, and the Government are unable, therefore, to give it.
*MR. DELANY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question has been fully answered.

SUPPLY OF BOOKS TO IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the teacher in an Irish national school, Roll No. 3,997, District No. 56, sent for books, 6th Standard Readers, to the Board's stores in the September of last year, and, though he made repeated inquiries since, has not yet got the books; and whether he will take some steps to improve or to close this institution.
MR. ATKINSON: These books have been sent to the teacher. They were only recently placed on the Board's authorised list, and consequently could not be supplied sooner. The inquiry in the second paragraph is founded on a misapprehension.

IRISH LAND LAWS—FERGUSON v. THE EARL OF GOSFORD.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he has observed that, in the land case of Ferguson v. The Earl of Gosford, the Sub-Commission decided against the tenant, and that this decision was confirmed by the Head Commissioner; if the report is accurate which represents Mr. Justice Meredith as having asked the case to be re-argued, owing to a decision in the Queen's Bench bearing on the question having been overlooked by the court, and if there is any precedent for such a course of procedure.
MR. ATKINSON: The case referred to by Mr. Justice Meredith was not cited by counsel on either side, and was, in fact, a decision pronounced only a few weeks previously, and not yet reported in the authorised Law Reports. Jurisdiction to review, rescind, or vary any order or decision previously made by them is vested in the Land Commission by Section 48, Sub-section 5, of the Land Act of 1881, and the Land Commission considered that the case was one in which the jurisdiction might properly be exercised. The request of the judge was at once assented to by counsel on both sides, and the case has been re-argued and stands for judgment.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: And I suppose the tenant will have to pay for the error of the court!

KILLORGLIN NATIONAL SCHOOL.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that salary has been withheld from the third assistant in the Killorglin male national school, county Kerry, because the attendance for the year ended 31st December, 1900, fell below the required average, which had been occasioned by an epidemic of whooping cough and influenza in the first quarter of that year; that this one quarter has been the cause of the low average for the calendar year; that this school maintained an average for three assistants during the past seventeen years; that the average for each of three quarters of the year 1900 was above the required standard,
1182
and that the average is at present above the required standard; and, seeing that the assistant is about to leave in consequence of salary being withheld, which may tend to lower the average in this school and lessen its educational value, to require two assistants to teach a school where the present average warrants three, and that several managers of schools are in correspondence with the Board regarding similar cases, whether the Commissioners can devise a rule to meet exceptional declines of this sort, and so prevent a permanent injury to the education of districts so circumstanced.
MR. ATKINSON: I am informed by the Commissioners that full allowance in accordance with the rules was made for the prevalence of an epidemic in the neighbourhood of the Killorglin male national school, and that salary was paid to the third assistant for four successive yearly periods, in each of which the average attendance was below the required minimum. It is not the view of the Commissioners that the present rules fail to provide for an exceptional decline in the attendance.
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the average attendance for the whole year was over the standard?
MR. ATKINSON: I have no further information.

ADMINISTRATION OF EXPLOSIVES ACT IN IRELAND.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say how many inspectors, under the Explosives Act, 1875, there are in Ulster; to what districts they are assigned; what salary is paid, and whether it is a pensionable office.
MR. ATKINSON: There are forty officers in Ulster—thirty-four police and six civilians. Three civilians act without remuneration in the urban districts of Letterkenny, Newtownards, and Coleraine; two at Omagh and Londonderry receive £5 and £15 a year respectively; and the town clerk, who acts at Ballymena, received an increase of salary to

1183
cover these duties. Any such payments to civilians are made out of local rates. Whether the office is pensionable is an abstract question of law which has not been decided. The thirty-four members of the constabulary who act as officers elsewhere in Ulster perform the duties free of charge to the local rates.
MR. LOUGH: What are the duties of these inspectors?
MR. ATKINSON: I must refer the hon. Member to the Act of Parliament.

IRISH FISHERIES—ILLEGAL STEAM TRAWLING.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will introduce a clause into the Steam Trawling (Ireland) Bill, appointing a number of gunboats to be placed on duty around the coasts of Ireland to protect the fishermen from steam trawlers fishing within the prescribed limits.
MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir. The Government could not insert in the Bill a clause of the nature indicated. The special cruiser "Helga," in the service of the Department of Agriculture, is now employed in protecting the Irish fisheries, and the steamer in the service of the Congested Districts Board has also been made available for the same purpose. The results attained have, so far, been very satisfactory, as during the past six months there have been fourteen prosecutions leading to convictions, and two other cases are now pending.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea whether the small amount of discussion necessary for this Bill will be taken before Whitsuntide?
MR. ATKINSON: I cannot say.

DUBLIN POLICE COURT FINES.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the amount of the fines levied in the Dublin police courts during the years
1184
1899 and 1900, and to what purpose the fines have been applied.
MR. ATKINSON: The amount of the fines and costs levied in these courts in 1899 was £5,760 16s. 5d., and in 1900 £5,316 14s. A portion of these amounts was appropriated in aid of the Metropolitan Police Vote, and the balance was paid to local bodies and in the shape of costs, awarded to private individuals, to which they are entitled under various statutes.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: What proportion was applied to the Constabulary Fund?
MR. ATKINSON: The fines and costs levied in 1899 were applied as follows:—£4,843 1s. 4d. to the Dublin Metropolitan Police Vote, £917 15s. 1d. to local bodies and private persons. In 1900 the allocation was £4,168 7s. 8d. to Police Vote, £1,148 6s. 4d. to local bodies and private persons.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Am I to understand that the whole of this money goes to the police?
MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member is to understand exactly what I have said.

FEVER IN THE ARRAN ISLANDS.
MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any further news to communicate to the House respecting the spread of fever in the Arran Islands; whether he is aware that the medical inspector of health fell a victim to the malady, and was left for an entire week without a doctor until he died; whether any complaints have reached him respecting the neglect shown to this gentleman, who died through neglect in the execution of his duty; whether any medical gentleman was temporarily appointed or volunteered to look after and discharge his duties during his fever illness; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the entire matter.
MR. ATKINSON: The latest report from the acting medical officer of health,

1185
received on the 26th April, was to the effect that the epidemic had passed away. As regards the late medical officer of health, it appears that, although he had recovered from fever, he has since succumbed to pneumonia. I have no information as to the other matters referred to in the second paragraph. When the late medical officer fell ill the islands were temporarily placed in charge of Dr. Lyden, the medical officer of Galway No. 1 dispensary district, and a medical gentleman from Dublin has since been appointed to the vacant office. There does not appear to be any necessity for an inquiry, as suggested at the conclusion of the question.
MR. DUFFY: Was not the Local Government Board telegraphed to several times to send down a medical man, as the local inspector of health was ill, and did not the gentleman sent, instead of going direct, spend five days in Dublin?
[No answer was returned.]

IRISH LOCAL TAXATION RETURN.
DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the Return of the local taxation in Ireland for the twelve months preceding the coming into operation of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.
MR. ATKINSON: The Returns of local taxation presented to Parliament in July of last year relate to the period preceding the date at which the Act of 1898 came into operation. The accounts on which the Returns were compiled cover local taxing periods varying from three to nine months. Returns for antecedent periods have also been regularly presented to Parliament.
DR. AMBROSE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me the figures?
MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member will obtain all the information he wants in the Return.

LONDONDERRY WORKHOUSE INFIRMARY.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
1186
of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the report of a meeting of the Londonderry Board of Guardians held on Saturday, 4th May, at which one of the lady guardians offered to present as a gift to the Londonderry workhouse infirmary an engraving of Guido Reni's "Ecce Homo," which offer was refused by a majority of the guardiians present; and whether, considering that this picture would be acceptable to the inmates of the said infirmary, the Irish Local Government Board will insist on the guardians accepting the gift thus offered, as well as other gifts of a similar class.
MR. ATKINSON: The facts are as stated. The Local Government Board have no power to interfere in the matter or to instruct the guardians in questions of taste in the fine arts. The matter is entirely for the guardians themselves to decide.

IMPRISONMENT OF MR. PATRICK M'HUGH, M.P.—PRISON REGULATIONS.
MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as Mr. M'Hugh, M.P., as registered proprietor of the Sligo Champion, is legally responsible while confined in Kilmainham gaol for the writings in his newspaper, he will direct that Mr. M'Hugh be accorded the same facilities in receiving and correcting his newspaper proofs and writing articles as were granted to the editor of the Roscommon Herald when confined as a first class misdemeanant in Sligo Gaol in 1889.
MR. ATKINSON: Mr. M'Hugh has made an application for permission to write for his newspaper and carry on the correspondence attached thereto. This application came before the visiting committee of the prison at a special meeting held yesterday, and was granted subject to conditions which are substantially identical with those imposed in 1889 in the case of the editor of the Roscommon Herald newspaper.

IRISH TRAINING COLLEGES: BUILDING GRANTS.
MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

1187
of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops of Ireland, passed at a recent meeting held at Maynooth, to the effect that the claim of the training colleges at Belfast, Limerick, and Waterford, under the national system of education to free homes, as granted to the Dublin colleges, which do similar work subject to precisely the same conditions, is just and reasonable, and, in the interests of primary education throughout the country almost necessary, inasmuch as the payment of the annuity on their building loan is such a tax on their income as to make it almost impossible for them to bring the training of their students up to a proper standard of excellence or meet the requirements of modern education; and whether he will take steps to put the training colleges at Belfast, Limerick, and Waterford on the same footing as the Dublin colleges.
MR. ATKINSON: The resolution referred to does not appear to have beer received. There is no power under the existing rules to make free building grants in the cases of the training colleges at Belfast, Limerick, and Waterford The case of the colleges in Dublin was exceptional, and the object of the decision arrived at by the Government in 1890 to provide the cost of these buildings was to place the Dublin colleges on an equality with the undenominational college there. The Government can hold out no hope in the direction suggested in the second paragraph.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLwas understood to ask if the Government proposed to take any steps with regard to recent representations as to the dangerous condition of the residences in some of these training colleges.
MR. ATKINSON: I am not in a position to reply to a supplementary question.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the fact that the grant to the college of Maynooth was originally intended to educate laymen
1188
as well as candidates for the Roman Catholic priesthood, and that a lay college in connection with Maynooth was worked for eighteen years, can he explain why it was abandoned; and will he state whether the consideration of this question will be referred to the proposed Royal Commission.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not had time to investigate the historical question my hon. friend puts to me, but, as a matter of fact, Maynooth is not now anything but a seminary, and therefore it hardly comes within the terms of reference to a Commission dealing with university education in Ireland.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—COMMITTEE ON PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Report of and copy of the evidence taken before the Committee of Inquiry into the Pay and Allowances of the Royal Irish Constabulary will be published and presented to Parliament.
MR. ATKINSON: Yes, Sir.

BUTTER ADULTERATION.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Robert Gibson was at Limerick Petty Sessions fined £60 for selling to the inspector under the Food and Drugs Act three samples of butter containing an undue percentage of water and boric acid; that Mr. Gibson stated he only represented the firm of Lemaire and Classy, of London, who sent him the butter for sale, and that he, being of opinion that it was fraudulently made, notified the inspector with a view of having samples analysed; and, seeing that the butter, though not of Irish make, was packed in Irish pyramid boxes, and that since the prosecution the fine imposed on Mr. Gibson was paid by the maker of the butter, whether he will take more active steps than heretofore to prevent frauds being perpetrated on the Irish butter trade.
MR. ATKINSON: The Department of Agriculture are fully aware of the

1189
facts stated in the question. The utmost vigilance is being exercised, and will continue to be exercised by them, to secure the effective administration of the Acts for prevention of butter frauds.
MR. CULLINAN: How many prosecutions have taken place in Ireland in regard to butter adulteration?
MR. ATKINSON: I must ask for notice.

IRISH BUTTER FRAUDS.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, seeing that quantities of butter, not of Irish make, containing an undue percentage of water, are sold in England packed in Irish pyramid boxes, whether he will take more active steps than heretofore to prevent this practice being continued.
*MR. HANBURY: We have received no representations showing that such butter is being sold packed in the manner described, and of course the use of pyramid boxes is not confined to Irish exporters. But if the hon. Member will supply me with further details full investigation shall be made.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: What is being done to prevent the practice of dressing up bad foreign butter in Irish clothes?
*MR. HANBURY: Prosecutions take place.

INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT APPEALS AT ATHLONE.
MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he can state the relative amount of assessments of income tax under Schedule D made in the Athlone district for the years 1897–8, 1898–9, 1899–1900, and 1900–1901, the number of appeals entered for hearing before the Special Commissioners last year, the number in which these Commissioners reduced the assessments; whether he is aware, from letters and other sources of information, that dissatisfaction exists in that district both at the manner in which the assessments were made and
1190
the manner of the Special Commissioners towards the appellants; and, whether he will direct inquiries to be instituted into the matters referred to.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The amounts of the income tax (Schedule D) assessments made in the Athlone district in the years specified have been:—In 1897–1898, £177,345; in 1898–1899, £186,823; in 1899–1900, £193,930; in 1900–1901, £208,498. The number of appeals entered for hearing by the Special Commissioners last year was 192; and in 81 of these cases the assessment was reduced. The Board of Inland Revenue have seen certain newspaper articles, including those forwarded to me by the hon. Member, criticising the assessments made and the manner in which the appeals were heard; but no representations have been made to them directly which support those criticisms. It is understood that one cause of complaint was the inadequacy of the premises in which the appeals were heard, and it has been arranged that in future the appeals shall be heard in the court house.
MR. KENNEDY: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiry?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, and I have given the hon. Member the results of the inquiry.

DUBLIN POST OFFICE—SORTING CLERKS.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why five sorting clerks, namely, Messrs. Aird, Beatty, Bleech, Harris, and O'Reilly, employed in the General Post Office, Dublin, who passed a competitive examination on the 15th July, 1896, along with fifteen others, were not sent up for the final Civil Service examination until July, 1897, although the fifteen candidates referred to were appointed in the months of February and March, 1897; whether a rule of 30th October, 1896, granting only 18s. per week starting pay to entrants under nineteen years of age, was made applicable to their case on the

1191
grounds of non-employment previous to that date; will he explain on what grounds seven sorting clerks, successful at the same examination, who had exceeded nineteen years of age, entering the Dublin office in the months of November and December, 1896 (after the rule of 30th October was formulated), were paid a starting wage of 20s., and got three weeks annual leave; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, these five men would be placed on the same footing as their seven fellow clerks now in receipt of 28s. per week and three weeks annual holidays.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The officers named received starting pay of 18s. a week because they were not placed on the establishment until after the date of the Tweedmouth Revision (1st April, 1897), and thus came under the scales originated by that revision. The reason why they were not appointed sooner was because there was in the ordinary official routine no call for their services on the established class until after the 1st April, 1897. Their selection as candidates for permanent employment implied no promise of appointment to an established situation, nor any undertaking by the Department to find permanent employment for them. Those other officers who were appointed to established posts before the 1st April, 1897, were, of course, entitled to the scales of pay and annual leave in force at the time, and their case is not parallel. The Postmaster General cannot, therefore, undertake to alter the starting pay or the amount of annual leave granted to the five officers in question.

CORK SORTING OFFICE.
MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that in the sorting office and parcel office at Cork the supervision of work and staff is at certain hours attached to ordinary duties, and that it sometimes happens that a junior is placed in charge of his seniors; and, considering that the matter has been reported to the postmaster at Cork, whether steps are being taken to have the supervising staff made adequate.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is not aware of the circumstances referred to, but inquiry is being made on the subject, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

CASTLEBAR POST OFFICE.
DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can give the date of the purchase of a site for a post office in Castlebar, county Mayo, and what was the purchase price of the site; what progress has been made in the construction of the new post office, and when does he expect that the building will be finished.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The lease of the site for the new post office at Castlebar has not yet bee completed. The ground rent to be paid under it is £27 a year. It is not likely that the building can be begun until towards the end of this year.

KIRCUBBIN POST OFFICE.
MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the resignation of the postmaster of Kircubbin, county Down, has been accepted; whether he is aware that for some time past dissatisfaction has existed at the manner in which the postal affairs of this district have been conducted owing to the fact that the person in charge of the post office has been engaged in other duties, and that special facilities are given to the present postmaster at Kircubbin to carry on his ordinary business by his having charge of the post office, and that, on his retirement from business, the said postmaster is selling the goodwill attached to the post office in addition to his ordinary business; and whether the Postmaster General will act on the suggestion contained in the memorial to him from the principal residents in the locality by appointing a successor to the present postmaster who will carry on the postal business independently of any other business, in view of the dissatisfaction referred to.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The sub-postmaster has not resigned his

1193
appointment nor intimated his intention of doing so. No memorial or complaint has been received by the Postmaster General expressing public dissatisfaction with the manner in which the duties of the office are performed. Those duties are reported to be discharged satisfactorily, and there is no reason to believe that the sub-postmaster allows his interest in his private business to affect his official work. The question of appointing a successor does not therefore arise.
MR. CONOR O'KELLY: Have no memorials or complaints been received?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that none were received by the Postmaster General.

QUESTIONS—PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF PROCEDURE.
*MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the large and increasing number of questions and supplementary questions addressed daily to Ministers before the commencement of public business, he will consider the propriety of limiting by Standing Order the number of questions which may be put on any one day by a single Member; and may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that already forty-six supplementary questions have so far been put this afternoon, and that there are four questions in the names of three hon. Members, five in the name of one hon. Member, and six in the name of three hon. Members.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my hon. friend, I think the House must feel that there are some difficulties, and, indeed, absurdities, in connection with our present system. I do not like to comment at length upon the matter—that would be improper—but it is evident that questions are constantly put, not for the purpose of eliciting information, but, if possible, to get a "score" off a Minister, and supplementary questions are often in the nature of debate on the reply. A friend of mine made out yesterday that on Monday 105 questions and sixty-three supplementaries were asked, and on Tuesday
1194
eighty-five questions and sixty-two supplementaries were put. A system like that is open to objection; but the right of putting questions should not be unnecessarily interfered with, and I am not prepared at the present moment to suggest a remedy.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on an average each question and answer does not take half a minute?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think far more than that.
MR. RENWICK: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in answer to a similar question which I put to him—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not in order to refer to a previous question and answer.
MR. RENWICK: Then may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will kindly state what number of questions he thinks might fairly be allowed?
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
MR. ALFRED DAVIES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether supplementary questions are not necessary in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies often given?

INTOXICATING LIQUORS (PREVENTION OF SALE TO CHILDREN) BILL.
MR. MOSS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to a case which was tried at the Birmingham Police Court, on 24th April last, in which a beerhouse keeper was summoned and convicted for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises; whether he is aware that it was proved in evidence that five young girls, whose ages were 12, 14, 15, 15, and 16 respectively, were found drunk on such premises; and whether, having regard to the fact that this is not an isolated instance of young children being served with intoxicating liquor, he can promise on behalf of the Government that they will give facilities for passing into law this session the Intoxicating

1195
Liquors (Prevention of Sale to Children) Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have nothing as yet to add to the answers I have given on more than one occasion in regard to this private Bill. As regards the very shocking case to which the hon. Gentleman calls my attention, I have not had any opportunity of finding out whether the facts are correctly represented in the question, but I have no reason to doubt that they are. I may perhaps point out to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill would do much in such a case, because the man had already committed an offence against the existing law, and had been punished under the existing law.
MR. CROMBIE: May I ask whether, having regard to the anxiety which exists as to the fate of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman can possibly say if he will be in a position to state before Whitsuntide what he will do?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it has ever been usual, and I do not think it is convenient, to state at so early a period of the session the course the Government propose to take with regard to a private Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can inform the House in what order he proposes to take the Scotch Estimates to-morrow.
*MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I gather from the usual sources of information that it would be to the general convenience of hon. Members to first discuss education. I therefore propose to put down the Votes in Class 4, then the Prisons Votes, and after that the remaining Votes in Class 3.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I wish to ask the Leader of the House, with regard to the motion standing in his name for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule, what is his reason for making that motion.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! No such question should be asked. By the Standing Order, the motion is to be made without amendment or debate, and the question immediately put, and it is not, therefore, in order to anticipate it by putting questions in order to elicit information.

New Member sworn, Joseph Lawrence, esquire, for the Borough of Monmouth.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on the Civil List, if the Committee be sitting at twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."—(Mr. Balfour.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 261; Noes, 179. (Division List, No. 174).

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

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

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bill, Charles

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Arrol, Sir William

Boulnois, Edmund

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

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Coddington, Sir William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brassey, Albert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Bain, Col. James Robert

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Baird, John George Alexander

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Balcarres, Lord

Brymer, William Ernest

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Baldwin, Alfred

Bullard, Sir Harry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

Cranborne, Viscount

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Carlile, William Walter

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Banbury, Frederick George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Cust, Henry John C.

Bartley, George C. T.

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

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Denny, Colonel

Law, Andrew Bonar

Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Renwick, George

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lawson, John Grant

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Rigg, Richard

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson-

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney).

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Robinson, Brooke

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Round, James

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Lowe, Francis William

Russell, T. W.

Faber, George Denison

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rutherford, John

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Finlay, Sir Robert B.

Maconochie, A. W.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln),

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

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

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Garfit, William

Manners, Lord Cecil

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside

Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

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

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

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

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Spear, John Ward

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich

Goschen, Hon. George J.

Middlemore, John T.

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Graham, Henry Robert

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Grant, Corrie

Milton, Viscount

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Green, Walford D (Wednesbu'y

Milward, Col. Victor

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdm'nds

Mitchell, William

Stroyan, John

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Grenfell, Willam Henry

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gretton, John

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w

Thornton, Percy M.

Groves, James Grimble

Morrell, George Herbert

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Hain, Edward

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hall, Edward Marshall

Mount, William Arthur

Vincent, Col.SirCEH (Sheffield

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Hambro, Charles Eric

Murray, RtHnA Graham (Bute

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hamilton, Rt.Hn.Ld G (Midd'x

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry

Myers, William Henry

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Nicholson, William Graham

Whiteley, H. (Ashton un. Lyne

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N. W.

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Helder, Augustus

Parker, Gilbert

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

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

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

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

Percy, Earl

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

Horner, Frederick William

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Plummer, Walter R.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wylie, Alexander

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Purvis, Robert

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Randles, John S.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rankin, Sir James

Younger, William

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ratcliffe, R. F.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Sir William Walrond and

Kimber, Henry

Remnant, James Farquharson

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

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

Ambrose, Robert

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Asher, Alexander

Black, Alexander William

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Austin, Sir John

Blake, Edward

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Boland, John

1198

1199

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.)

Boyle, James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Brigs, John

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

Partington, Oswald

Broadhurst, Henry

Holland, William Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Burt, Thomas

Horniman, Frederick John

Pirie, Duncan V.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Caine, William Sproston

Jacoby, James Alfred

Price, Robert John

Caldwell, James

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Priestley, Arthur

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Joicey, Sir James

Rea, Russell

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jones, DavidBrynmor (Swans'a

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Carew, James Laurence

Jones, William (Carnarvonshie)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Joyce, Michael

Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries)

Causton, Richard Knight

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Roche, John

Cawley, Frederick

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Channing, Francis Allston

Kitson, Sir James

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Colville, John

Labouchere, Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lambert, George

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Crean, Eugene

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Crombie, John William

Leamy, Edmund

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Cullinan, J.

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh'e

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leng, Sir John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Lewis, John Herbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Delany, William

Lloyd-George, David

Soares, Ernest J.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

Spencer, Rt Hn. C R. (Northants

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lundon, W.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Dillon, John

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Strachey, Edward

Donelan, Captain A.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sullivan, Donal

Doogan, P. C.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Duffy, William J.

M'Fadden, Edward

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Dunn, Sir William

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

Edwards, Frank

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

Elibank, Master of

Mooney, John J.

Tomkinson, James

Emmott, Alfred

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

Morley, Chas (Breconshire)

Tully, Jasper

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morley, Rt. Hn. John Montrose

Ure, Alexander

Fenwick, Charles

Morton, Edw. J. C (Devonport)

Wallace, Robert

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Moss, Samuel

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Ffrench, Peter

Murphy, J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Weir, James Galloway

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, George (Norfolk)

Flynn, James Christopher

Norman, Henry

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fuller, J. M. F.

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

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

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

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Hammond, John

O'Doherty, William

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Harwood, George

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Mr. Lough and Mr. Warner.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Mara, James

CIVIL LIST.
Considered in Committee:—
(In the Committee.)
[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Paragraph of His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, at the opening of the session, respecting the Civil List and His Majesty's Most Gracious Message of the 5th day of March, relating to Grants to Her Majesty the Queen and Members of His Majesty's Family, read.
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)said: In one respect I hope there will be an agreeable difference between the discussion of the subject to which it is my duty to call the attention of the Committee to-night and that of the proposals which I have recently had to place before the House of Commons in connection with the Budget. During the long and great reign of our late Queen, perhaps there are few things more remarkable than the manner in which

1201
the Crown, thanks largely to her great constitutional wisdom and her noble character, increased in popularity throughout her dominions. I think it is not too much to say that at no time was the Crown more popular as an institution in this country than at the present, and perhaps it is the most popular of all our great institutions. But there is more than this. Throughout the Empire there has grown up a feeling, and a very right and proper feeling, of the enormous importance of the Crown as the main link of all those nations and peoples of which the British Empire is composed; and therefore I think it occurred that in the brief debate in which this subject was dealt with at the commencement of the present session there was no sign of any difference of opinion as to the necessity of making sufficient and adequate provision for the maintenance of the honour and dignity of the Crown. Sir, the same spirit was exhibited in the proceedings of the late Committee. The hon. Member for Northampton, with his invariable consistency to his past, no doubt felt it his duty to differ from the Report which I had the honour to propose, and, of course, there were differences of detail between the Members of that Committee, as could not but be the case in a Committee representing, as I will venture to say, every shade of opinion within this House—[Nationalist cries of "No."]—hon. Members will perhaps allow me to finish my sentence—except the opinions of the party led by the hon. Member for Waterford. Therefore, I shall not attempt to detain the Committee to-night with any argument upon the principle of a new Civil List. I take it that that is practically admitted, and that this House, in accepting the surrender by his Majesty of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, accepted also the liability to provide an adequate Civil List for the maintenance of the Crown, and whatever else may be necessary for the maintenance of the Royal Family; and I shall merely explain the proposals of His Majesty's Government with regard to that important subject.
When in March last I proposed the appointment of a Select Committee I deferred any explanation of those proposals until it could be made to that
1202
Committee. It seemed to me that such action was most in accordance with the ordinary procedure of Parliament, and was best adapted to secure an adequate consideration and a proper decision upon the important subjects that were at issue. The Committee considered our proposals, and the result of that consideration is embodied in the Report which is now in the hands of hon. Members; and although I would not for a moment attempt to shift upon the Select Committee any responsibility in this matter which properly belongs to the Government, yet I may venture to say that it is no small advantage that our proposals in this respect should have been practically accepted, almost with unanimity, by so important a tribunal, and that with those proposals there should be placed before the House all the information, considered adequate for the purpose by that Select Committee, on which those proposals were based, and by which, of course, they are defended. It is far better, it seems to me, that the matter should be presented to the House of Commons in this way, because it is far more easy for hon. Members, having the whole matter before them in print, to arrive at a proper decision than if they had merely heard a statement in regard to it by a Minister of the Crown.
I hope that the great majority of this House will consider our proposals in this matter sufficient and moderate. Some may say, perhaps, that they are too small; others may say, perhaps, that they are too large. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear; and laughter.] But I would reply, first, that I cannot think it would be to the advantage of the Crown to vote so large a Civil List, that there would be a temptation to the Sovereign on the one hand either to lavish and unnecessary expenditure, or on the other to the accumulation of savings after the duties of the Crown had been adequately performed. And to anyone who may suggest, as I have no doubt the hon. Member for Northampton will suggest, that our proposals are too large, I would reply that I do not think anything more unjust to the Sovereign or injurious to the country can easily be conceived than that the Civil List should be cut down to such proportions that it would not be adequate to

1203
maintain the proper dignity and honour of the Crown in the way in which the nation would desire it to be maintained, and that the Sovereign should be compelled to resort to Parliament for payment of debts incurred on account of the too small dimensions of the Civil List. We have based our proposals on existing lines. We have adhered to those lines as far as we thought it possible and right; where we have departed from them, and the reasons for which we have so departed, is explained in the Report of the Select Committee. The Civil List of the late Queen was £385,000 a year. I would in passing state to the Committee that in that sum was not included what are called the Civil List pensions, the pensions not exceeding in all £1,200 in any year which are annually granted on the recommendation of the First Lord of the Treasury to persons, or the near relations of persons, who may unhappily be in indigent circumstances and who have done public service to the State in some form or other, mainly, I think, by literary or scientific work. Those pensions are purely a nominal part of the Civil List; they amount, in all, at the present time, to £24,000 a year, and they will in future be charged on the Consolidated Fund, to which, and not to the Civil List, they properly belong. I exclude them on both sides from the comparisons which I am about to make.
By the Civil List Act passed at the commencement of the reign of Her late Majesty, the Civil List was divided into five classes. First, was the Privy Purse; second, the salaries of all the officials and servants of the Court, from the Great Officers of State, the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, and the Master of the Horse, down to the domestic servants; third, the expenses for the maintenance of the household, including the maintenance of the garden and farm at Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, the expenses of travelling, and practically all other expenses except salaries and wages; fourth, the Royal Bounty, alms, and special services of that kind; and fifth, an unappropriated balance of £8,000 a year, making in all £385,000 a year. We propose to add another class to the new Civil List, the reason for which I will presently explain.
I will now compare class by class
1204
our proposals. It will be found in the Report of the Select Committee, among the amounts which were allocated to each class by the Civil List Act of Queen Victoria, that £60,000 was devoted to the Privy Purse of the Sovereign. In the new Civil List we have to consider, happily, that there is a Queen Consort as well; and we propose that the Privy Purse of their Majesties shall be £110,000 a year, the same amount as was provided by Parliament for the Privy Purse of King William IV. and Queen Adelaide. Parliament has never inquired, and I feel quite sure that the present House of Commons will not desire to inquire, into the expenditure of the Privy Purse of the Sovereign, but I should like to say one thing in regard to that matter. It may be supposed by some ignorant persons—not, I am sure, by any Member of the House—that there is no obligation upon the Sovereign with respect to the expenditure of the Privy Purse; that practically it is a sort of pocket-money which can be devoted by the Sovereign to any purpose he may desire. That is not by any means the fact. It is to meet, in the first instance, all those almost innumerable requests—increasing, I venture to say, year after year, and coming probably from every part of the Empire, and sometimes, I dare say, from foreign countries—for contributions, by way of subscription or donation, to charitable and other public purposes of every kind, to which, I am sure, a Sovereign of the generous heart of His present Majesty would be always desirous liberally to respond. But beyond that, which is in itself no slight burden upon the Sovereign, there is an expenditure which the Sovereign of England has always incurred for private residences apart from the public palaces like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. Our present Sovereign not only has a private residence at Sandringham, at which he has lived for, I believe, something like forty years, but the late Queen has bequeathed to him, as Sovereign of this country, Balmoral and Osborne, which are associated in the minds of the people of this country with many charming and never-to-be-forgotten memories of Her late Majesty's great and noble life. Those residences are necessarily expensive to maintain. They must be main

1205
tained out of the Privy Purse and out of the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, which, as the Committee are aware, is a kind of private appanage of the Crown, belonging to it for many past generations; and I do not mention these things in order to suggest to the Committee that on account of the cost of these private residences there should be an addition to the Civil List. But, surely, of all persons in the country the Sovereign is most entitled to occasional private recreation, apart from his public duties, in which he may enjoy that rest and partake in those rural pursuits which are now recognised as necessary to refresh the mind and body of every person in this country who is actively engaged in the performance of important work; and therefore I mention them as showing that there is an expenditure incumbent upon the Sovereign of this country out of the Privy Purse which cannot be avoided, and which must necessarily involve considerable cost.
I now come to the second class of the Civil List—the class for the salaries of the officers of State, the annual payments to persons belonging to the Court, and for servants' wages. In the time of Her late Majesty that class was fixed by Parliament at £131,260 a year. We now propose that it shall be fixed at £125,800 a year. That estimate has been based upon proposals for the abolition of unnecessary offices and for the reduction of salaries as vacancies occur, as the result of an inquiry instituted by command of His Majesty by the three great officers of State—the Lord Steward, the Lord Chamberlain, and the Master of the Horse—into their several departments. I need not go into the details of those proposals, as they will be found in the appendix to the Report of the Committee, but perhaps I may state to the Committee some of the principal of them. It is proposed that on the next vacancies the salaries of the Treasurer of the Household, the Comptroller of the Household, and the Vice-Chamberlain shall be reduced from £900 to £700 a year; that instead of seven Parliamentary lords-in-waiting at £700 a year each, there shall be five at £600 a year each; that the salary of the captain of the Gentlemen-at Arms and of the captain of the Yeomen of the Guard shall be
1206
reduced from £1,200 a year each to £1,000 a year each; that the salary of the Master of the Horse shall be reduced from £2,500 to £2,000, the same amount as is paid to the Lord Steward and the Lord Chamberlain; and, lastly, it is provided that the Mastership of the Buckhounds shall be abolished. We proposed to the Committee that the Royal Buckhounds should cease to exist, but that in their place Royal Foxhounds should be established. But when that proposal came to be discussed various difficulties were found to arise, and the opinion of the Committee was very distinctly in favour of the abolition of the Mastership of the Buckhounds and of the Royal Hounds generally. The Committee report as follows on that question—
"Your Committee do not think it advisable that the Mastership of the Buckhounds should be continued, nor do they think it necessary that the Royal Hunt should be maintained. They feel that it is for the Sovereign to decide whether and in what form encouragement should be given by his Majesty to any particular national sport; and they do not consider it desirable to impose on his Majesty an obligation to do so by devoting a portion of the Civil List specially to that object."
The Committee therefore struck out of Class 2 the sum of £2,200 in respect of the salaries of the Master of the Buckhounds and the servants of the Hunt, and out of Class 3 the sum of £4,000 for the expenses of the Hunt. His Majesty, on our advice, agreed to accept this recommendation; and, therefore, the Mastership of the Buckhounds will cease to exist as soon as an arrangement has been made for terminating the Royal Hunt. I may explain that a new item has been included in Class 2 of £10,500 for the personal staff of the King, including private secretaries, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, and various assistant clerks. Any one, I think, who has any notion of the amount of business that in our day has to be transacted by the Sovereign, and the manner in which it is transacted, will be ready to agree that provision for offices of this kind is as vitally necessary as is any provision which is made in the Civil List. The class, on the other hand, will be reduced by taking out of it a sum of £12,000 a year for non-effective services—in other words, for pensions granted by her late Majesty to those who had been in her

1207
service for many years, and many of whom are now very advanced in age. We felt that it would be unfair to burden the Civil List of the present King with those charges, and that sum will in future be imposed upon the Consolidated Fund. We propose, also, that in addition to that £13,000 should be charged upon the Consolidated Fund for pensions for servants of the late Queen, who at the commencement of a new reign clearly ought to be retired for one reason or another, and could not properly form part of the establishment of the new Sovereign. Many of these servants, again, are advanced in age; the pensions granted are on account of services of Considerable length; and as these pensions fall in the benefit will accrue to the Exchequer.
I now come to Class 3, in which is included, as I have already explained to the Committee, all the provision for the maintenance of the Royal Household, for travelling, and practically everything but the salaries and wages of the officers and servants belonging to it. This is a class which the Committee very carefully considered. The sum allotted to it in the Civil List of Queen Victoria was £172,500, but if Members turn to the accounts of expenditure attached to the Committee's Report they will find that in only one year for the last thirteen years—namely, in 1888—did the sum allocated to this class in the Civil List suffice for the expenditure. A total sum of no less than £170,250 had to be devoted to the expenditure in this class from the Privy Purse of the Sovereign, in order to meet the necessary requirements of the class. As hon. Members are aware, during a very considerable part of her reign her late Majesty was suffering under the great grief of her life, and, in entire concurrence with the sympathies of her people, she lived in comparative seclusion, although never for a moment did she cease from doing her necessary work as Queen. Therefore, the expenses of the Court during that time were, of course, curtailed, and savings were made which enabled the Privy Purse, which had, in accordance with the law, obtained the benefit of those savings, to bear this excess expenditure in Class 3. But there
1208
is not the least possibility of this now. The present King has no personal fortune. Whatever remains from the private fortune of the late Queen or from the savings to which I have referred was, in accordance with the statement made by her Majesty's Ministers to the Committee on the Prince of Wales's Children Act of 1889, devoted by her Majesty to the benefit of her younger children. Therefore, it is a fact which cannot, I think, be too widely known that the present King has no personal fortune, and is dependent upon the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster and upon the Civil List which may be voted by Parliament. Therefore it is absolutely clear that we must in this. Class 3, which relates to the necessary expenditure of the Royal Household, make sufficient provision for that expenditure.
The Committee went very carefully into that matter. They felt that the only guide to the proper provision to be made—and in that I think the hon. Member for Northampton entirely agreed—was the expenditure of past years; and they took as a guide the expenditure of recent years, because it is perfectly evident that the expenditure of recent years is a fairer guide than the expenditure of fifty years ago. I do not mean that there are not many items in the charge for the maintenance of the Royal Household in which the expenditure may have decreased as compared with what it was fifty years ago. The prices of many articles of food may be less now than they were then; but I will venture to say that, taking all articles together, the expenditure on such an establishment an the Royal Household must necessarily even in that matter be larger than it was in 1837. And beyond that the charges for labour have increased; tradesmen's bills are, therefore, necessarily higher; there is more travelling, and the cost of travelling, when the travelling of the Royal Family is concerned, is more expensive than it was; there are more visitors to be entertained at Court from foreign countries, from our colonies, and from this country itself, and therefore more horses and carriages to be kept—there are many items of that kind which are necessarily

1209
larger than they were in the early days of the late Queen's reign. And, further, throughout all the country, happily for everyone, the standard of comfort has been largely raised, the standard of entertainment has enormously increased; and it is right and proper that the Crown should be put in such a position that the King's comfort should not be interfered with and that he should be able to exercise that hospitality which the country would desire. Therefore the Committee, after carefully going through this class, and after relieving it of certain payments, such as that for the Royal Hunt, the Mistress of the Robes, the expense of which office will fall on the Privy Purse, of £3,350 for Queen's premiums, which with some other small matters will fall on the Votes, and of £10,000 a year for the internal repairs and decorations at Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, which will be placed in another class of the Civil List—the Committee thought that it was necessary, for the reasons I have stated, that the class as a whole should be increased to £193,000 a year. I may state before I pass from it that His Majesty has directed that a thorough investigation shall be made into the system of household management and everything connected with the Royal Household expenditure, in order that any possible abuses or waste which may have sprung up through so long a reign may be promptly and properly corrected.
I come now to Class 4. It is a new one. It amounts to £20,000 a year, and it is partly composed of £10,000 a year, of which Class 3 has been relieved, for the work which may be required from year to year for decorations or internal repairs and alterations at Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, and to that we propose to add another £10,000 of which the Votes in Parliament will be relieved, for this work. There has been a very curious system hitherto under which works of this kind have been performed. They have partly been performed by the direction of the Lord Chamberlain or the Lord Steward, and charged in the Civil List, and partly by the direction of the Office of Works out of Votes in Parliament. That kind of divided control does not conduce either to economy or efficiency. Therefore we
1210
proposed to the Committee, and the Committee accepted our recommendation, that in future the Parliamentary Votes should be relieved of the £10,000 a year which is now placed upon them for these purposes, and that all internal work in these two palaces of the Crown, shall in future be done under the orders of the Sovereign by the Office of Works, the expenditure to be charged on the Civil List. Therefore, on the one side, the great officers of State will be directly interested more than they have been in the past in controlling the demands of their subordinates, and, secondly, the Office of Works will be able to perform these works more economically on account of its greater knowledge of contracts and its better means of checking expenditure in every way.
Then I come to the fifth class—£13,200 a year—which is the same as in the similar class in the Civil List of Queen Victoria, for the Royal bounty and Royal alms, partly administered on the recommendation of the First Lord of the Treasury and partly on the recommendation of the Lord High Almoner. Finally, there is £8,000 a year, as practically there was in the last Civil List, unappropriated, and therefore available to make up any deficit in any one of the classes. The total amount of the Civil List to the King which we propose is therefore £470,000 a year.
Now I come to the provision to be made for those members of the Royal Family whose positions were affected by the death of the late Queen. Hon. Members are aware that by the Prince of Wales's Children Act, 1889, a sum of £36,000 a year was provided to be handed over to trustees and to be administered under the direction of his present Majesty for the benefit of his children. That provision ceases on 22nd July next, in accordance with the Act; and, therefore, it is necessary now for us to make further provision for these members of the Royal Family, which I think the Committee will feel ought to be in accordance with the higher position to which they have now succeeded. We propose that an annuity of £20,000 a year should be provided for His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall, who will, of course, also receive the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, which have been considerably

1211
augmented since his present Majesty succeeded to the Duchy, owing, I am bound to say, to the admirable way in which the estates of that Duchy have been administered, largely under his present Majesty's own superintendence.
I cannot help, if the Committee will allow me in this connection, alluding to one point which I think is of real public interest. The estates of the Duchy of Cornwall comprise property situated in one of the poorest parts of South London. That property was let early in the last century on very long leases, so that practically only in recent years has any control of it been possible by those entrusted with the administration of the affairs of the Duchy. As these leases have fallen in what has been done? They have not been succeeded by new building leases. Those who have been responsible for the affairs of the Duchy, on the initiative of His Majesty himself, have taken this matter into their own hands, have built houses, and have let them direct to tenants, just as in the country the connection between landlord and tenant is direct. That has resulted, not merely to the great advantage of the revenues of the Duchy—that was not the primary consideration—but what is of more importance, it has established a direct connection between the owner of the ground and the dweller in the house, the general absence of which, I venture to say, has had not a little to do with the difficulty of housing the poor in large cities like London. I cannot help mentioning this, because I know what great interest His Majesty takes in the subject himself, and I venture to say he has set a noble example to all ground landlords. I should state to the Committee that in the annuity which we propose for the Duke of Cornwall and in the Civil List no provision is included for the children of his Royal Highness if and when those children shall come to an age at which they may require separate establishments. We thought, and the Select Committee agreed with us, that, having regard to the youth of the children of His Royal Highness, any such provision would, to say the least, be premature. Besides this, I should say that we propose an annuity of £10,000 a year to Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall during the continuance of her marriage to the Duke
1212
of Cornwall, and a contingent annuity of £30,000 a year in the event of her surviving His Royal Highness; the same provision in both cases as was made for our present Queen on her marriage with his present Majesty. We propose that the contingent annuity of £30,000 a year then provided for the present Queen, in the event of her surviving the King, should be raised to £70,000 a year. I may state that the annuity granted under similar circumstances to Queen Adelaide was £100,000 a year. We propose that an annuity of £18,000 a year for the joint lives of the three princesses the daughters of the King, diminishing by £600 a year on the death of any one of them, should be paid over to trustees precisely on the lines of the Prince of Wales's Children Act of 1899, to be devoted to their benefit in such way as from time to time His Majesty may appoint, subject to the assent of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day.
The total financial result of the proposals for the Civil List and for those members of the Royal Family not included in the Civil List, excluding the contingent annuities and including the £25,000 a year proposed to be placed on the Consolidated Fund for the pensions of the servants of the late Queen, amounts to £543,000 a year, as against £476,000 a year charged for similar purposes during the late reign, an increase of £67,000 a year, as will be found by hon. Members in the Report of the Committee, falling to £42,000 a year, when the pensions to the servants of the late Queen have disappeared. That is in itself, I think, a very moderate increase. It is due, of course, to the provision for the Queen Consort, and also to the necessity for providing for increased expenditure in the Royal Household; but I should like, before I conclude, to mention one point with regard to it. The Committee are aware that this £543,000 a year does not directly fall on the taxpayer. Under the Civil List Act of Her late Majesty, the hereditary revenues of the Crown would revert to the present King on 22nd July next, unless Parliament provided a new Civil List. These hereditary revenues amounted in the year 1900 to £452,000 a year—

1213
£420,000 net receipts from Crown lands, and £32,000 from minor hereditary revenues. At the accession of the late Queen, they amounted to no more than £245,000 a year—£240,000 from the Crown lands in the year 1839, and £5,000 from the minor hereditary revenues in the year 1838. Now, Sir, I do not contend for a moment—I have never contended, that the Civil List of the Crown should he fixed according to the amount yielded by those hereditary revenues. It was not so fixed at the accession of our late Queen, and it ought not to be so fixed, because what we ought to consider in this case is what may be a necessary and proper provision to be made for the Sovereign and the Royal Family. But yet it is worth notice that out of this £543,000 a year no less than £452,000 was provided in the year 1900 from sources not directly falling upon the taxpayers of this country; and, as the Crown revenues are increasing, as they produced last year more than they did in the previous year, I think we may venture to anticipate that there will be a still smaller charge in the future. Of course the Crown revenues are composed of receipts from very different sources—some from agricultural land, some from minerals, some from timber, and some from ground rents in London. It is therefore very difficult to prophesy what may be in the future the total yield of an estate of this kind, because any increase on the one hand may be counterbalanced by a decrease on the other. But so far as can be anticipated, having regard to the fact that some valuable leases in London will shortly fall in, and that it may be possible in this way considerably to increase the receipts from the Crown estates, I think I may venture to say that if the revenues from other sources remain at the point at which they now stand, no more than £33,000 a year during the next sixteen years will be the average charge on the taxpayers, beyond these Crown revenues, for the Civil List and the grants to the other members of the Royal Family which we now propose.
I have completed the explanation which it was my duty to make to the Committee. I recommend these proposals—which have been stamped, as I have already
1214
stated, with the approval of the important tribunal to which the. House referred the question—to the fair consideration of the House of Commons. I think they are a just and reasonable settlement as between the Crown and the people for the present reign. I think that, on the one hand, they are sufficient for the necessary requirements of the Crown. On the other hand, I am sure that they impose but a very small burden on the people, and I trust that they may be received by this House with as general an acquiescence as they were received by the Select Committee.
Motion made, and Question proposed—

CIVIL LIST.

  1. FINANCIAL.
  "That there be charged on the Consolidated Fund as from the demise of Her late Majesty the following annual payments:—

  £

  For the King's Civil List

  470,000

  For retired allowances:—Such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of retired allowances granted by Her late Majesty or by His present Majesty to members of Her late Majesty's household not exceeding in all £25,000.

  For Civil List pensions:—Such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of Civil List pensions already granted or hereafter to be granted.

  For the Duke of Cornwall and York

  £20,000

  For the Duchess of Cornwall and York

  10,000

  For the Duchess of Cornwall and York in the event of Her surviving the Duke of Cornwall and York

  30,000

  For His Majesty's daughters

  18,000

  For Queen Alexandra in the event of Her surviving His Majesty the King

  70,000

  And that provision be made for continuing for a period of six months after the close of the present reign certain payments so charged which would otherwise be then determined."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman, as he has reminded the Committee, spoke on this occasion, in the very clear statement which he has made to us, not only on the part of His Majesty's Government, but on the part of the Committee to which the House of Commons referred this important matter, and over whose deliberations the right hon. Gentleman presided. I do not doubt at all that the prevailing desire in this House and in the country is to see that a provision should be made for maintaining the state and dignity of the British Crown which shall fittingly represent the loyal attachment of the people. The right hon. Gentleman has said enough to show to the Members of this Committee, even if it was not apparent to them before, that there was no room in this matter for any large reduction of expenditure. The Court has for many years been living quiet days, owing to the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and yet, in spite of that fact, the expenditure has lately been advancing almost alarmingly. And now, with a new reign, there can be no question that some increase of expenditure will be expected, and will be incurred. My belief, Sir, is that the proposals now submitted to Parliament will be held to represent a reasonable provision for this purpose. The Bill when it is introduced will no doubt give opportunities for any Members who are not satisfied on detail points, but I can only trust that on this occasion, at least, there will be substantial unanimity.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained to the Committee, Irish Members sitting in this House took no part whatever in the Committee over which I believe he presided, and the Report of which we are concerned with to-night Under those circumstances I think the Committee will agree that it is reasonable that we should be permitted very shortly and as clearly at possible to explain our attitude in this matter, and to give some account of the reasons that actuate us. Let me say at the very start that, so far as I know there is not only no desire to offer anything which would be open fairly
  1216
  to the construction of obstructive opposition to this proposal, but there is among hon. Members sitting here no desire even to take part in what may be called captious criticism with reference to the details placed before the Committee, But there is an intention on the part of a number of Members to vote against this resolution as a whole, and I therefore claim from the Committee that I may be permitted to explain the reasons which actuate us in taking that action.
  I may say that we are moved by three reasons in this matter. It will be in the recollection, I think, of hon. Members, that when the appointment of the Committee which has just concluded its labours was before the House we protested that we could not take any part in the appointment of that Committee, and that we would oppose its appointment so long as there remained unrepealed a statutory obligation on the Sovereign to take a succession oath the character of which is an insult to Irishmen. That is one of our objections.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to refer to that matter, but I do not think he would be entitled to go into it and argue it at length.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: On the last occasion, when the Speaker was in the chair, he informed me that in his judgment it would be impossible for me to discuss this question, and I have no intention with you, Sir, in the chair, of trying to avoid the ruling which he laid down, but I may state shortly what occurred. When we first made the objection the First Lord of the Treasury made an announcement which induced us to withdraw our opposition to the Committee. He proposed to refer the matter to a Committee, and what I desire—and I pass from the question—what I desire to do is to point out the position in which we now stand with reference to this question. Nothing further has been done except that the terms of reference have now been published, and we find in the terms of reference to the proposed Committee an additional and fresh insult to our country. Therefore, we are reunited to our original position in which we stood, and we are bound, according to our conscientious opinion upon this matter, to vote against

  1217
  this resolution upon the ground which I may not discuss, but which I think I have sufficiently indicated to all quarters of the Committee.
  The second ground of opposition is that in all these matters where burdens are placed upon the people of Great Britain and Ireland an unfairly large portion of those burdens falls upon Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no doubt pointed out according to his calculations of the value of Crown lands and so forth that the margin of the burden which will fall upon the people will be comparatively small. I cannot on this occasion go into the question of Crown lands, but it is sufficient for me that a considerable margin of burden will be thrown on the people of Ireland by these proposals, and that is sufficient to justify me in protesting on behalf of Ireland, in view of the fact that we pay more, as more than one of your own specially appointed experts have pointed out, than our fair share. I will not go into the question of the financial relations between the two countries; I might be ruled out of order if I dealt with it at any length; but let me point out one thing which is incontrovertible—an ascertained and incontrovertible fact—the fact that Ireland to-day per head of the population pays towards Imperial purposes double what she was paying eighty years ago, while England pays fully 25 per cent. less than she was paying eighty years ago, and that during those eighty years the wealth and prosperity of England have enormously increased, whilst in Ireland poverty has increased with equal rapidity. That is the second ground we take; but for my part I regard these grounds as subsidiary grounds altogether.
  The real ground of opposition which I take to this proposal raises far higher and broader issues than those to which I have been alluding. The monarch for whose maintenance this sum is required is a Constitutional Sovereign; he is a necessary part of the British Constitution as it stands at the present moment, and I, for my part, most fairly admit that under that constitution the constitutional liberty of the English people is safeguarded and maintained. The vital and fundamental principle of the British
  1218
  Constitution is that the nation shall be governed only in accordance with the constitutionally expressed wishes of the majority of the people. By that principle constitutional liberty is assured, and England to-day is loyal for the most part to the Crown and Constitution. Sir, I might be allowed to say that the exact opposite to this is the state of things in Ireland. We in Ireland are mocked by the form, but are deprived of the substance, of the British Constitution. The Irish nation to-day is not governed in accordance with, but is permanently governed in direct opposition to, the constitutionally expressed will of the majority of the people. That is to say, we are governed by a principle, the fair definition of which is slavery. We are the victims there of the Government. Our liberties are not assured and maintained, but are violated and outraged in the form of this Constitution, and we are now asked to vote money to maintain a necessary part of that Constitution. Well, Sir, we decline to do so. When Ireland had a free Constitution of her own, and a free Parliament of her own, she was fair and generous, aye, and according to her means lavish, in voting money to maintain the Constitution and the Sovereign, and for helping wars which were being waged in all parts of the world with which she had no concern; but an enslaved province, which is practically the position of Ireland to-day, will not willingly contribute to the burden which this will place upon us. Hon. Members may say that all this is but another proof of what they are pleased to call the disloyalty of Ireland. Loyalty is a relative term. For my part, I believe by nature there is no people in the world more prone to genuine and true loyalty than the people of Ireland; but, after all, every man of us feels that the first and most genuine loyalty we owe is to the liberties of our own country. What I freely admit is this, that our action upon this question is a symptom of the disease from which Ireland has suffered ever since the Union. That disease is susceptible of a very easy and rapid cure, but until the remedy is applied it would be affectation and folly on the part of this House to express surprise at the recurrence of the malady, and it would be the most arrant hypocrisy for us to: come here and cover up and hide from you

  1219
  what are the true sentiments of the masses of the people. Our great countryman Henry Grattan said, "Loyalty is a noble and great principle, but loyalty apart from liberty is corruption." On that ground we take our stand, and, while abstaining from any obstructive or vexatious opposition to this proposal, or any capricious criticisms as to details, at the same timer we shall make our protest at every stage of these proceedings, voting against them on behalf of a people who have been impoverished under your rule, and enslaved under your constitution.
  *MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that he was a Member of the Committee which sat to consider the question, and, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the House was fully represented upon it, he took the liberty to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I said that every shade of opinion in the House was represented.
  *MR. LABOUCHERE: Well my shade was not fully represented. The Committee consisted of twenty-one members, seventeen of whom were either Members of the Conservative side of the House, or Members of the Front Opposition Bench who it was well known always voted with Government upon any question affecting the Court. As the hon. Member for Waterford had pointed out, no Irishmen were upon it. [Cries of "Why?" from the Conservative Benches.]
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Because we would not act.
  *MR. LABOUCHERE: However, they were not there. The Committee had reported that a sum largely in excess of that granted to her late Majesty should be granted to the present King, upon the ground that it was necessary; at the same time the Civil List was relieved of a number of charges which it had borne during the late reign. He could not agree that the augmentation to the Civil List was, under the circumstances, necessary, although he quite agreed that the Crown ought to be maintained with honour and dignity. Had he thought
  1220
  such a large sum of money was necessary to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown, he should have voted for it, but as he did not agree he presented a humble report of his own. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the taxpayer had no right over the Crown lands, and taking the value of the Crown lands into consideration, the taxpayer only paid £30,000 per annum. That was an illusion and a myth. In 1869 a Report was issued by the Treasury in regard to public income and expenditure, and it went into that matter very carefully, and published two Blue books, from which he had taken the figures from which he proposed to correct the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before the revolution of 1688 there was no such thing as a Civil List. There were certain hereditary revenues derived from Crown lands, and certain revenues voted by the Parliament for the lifetime of the sovereign. All those amounts were devoted to the civil government of the country. The first Civil List voted was that of William and Mary; it was for the expenses of the King and Queen and other necessary expenses, and these included many payments for the civil government of the country. The amount was £600,000, but that amount was subsequently reduced by £192,000. In the reign of Queen Anne there was again a Civil List Act, and the List was subject to the same payments. The Civil Lists of George I. and George II. were practically the same. In the preamble of the Civil List Act of George III. it was stated that—
  "the Sovereign consented to such disposition of the hereditary revenues as might conduce to the utility and satisfaction of the public."
  But George III. had no title to the hereditary revenues; they belonged nominally to the Sovereign of the time, but to the Sovereign as the representative of the State, and not in his individual capacity. For example, the Judges, the Treasury, and pensions were paid out of the Civil List of George III., and the salary of the Speaker of the House of Commons was included. A Committee was appointed in the time of William IV., and it advised that the Civil List should be applied only to the dignity and state of the Crown. This advice was partially adopted. There was an idea prevalent

  1221
  that in some special way the Crown lands belonged personally to the Sovereign. The Report stated that at an early period of the history of this country the landed property of the Crown afforded the principal source of revenue, and since then no Act had been passed to alter that position of the Crown lands, and only Acts affecting them were to prevent the alienation of Crown lands. The case of the smaller hereditary revenues was peculiar. It was asserted that the Crown was entitled to them by prescription, but George III. and George IV. took them for themselves, and in order to prevent this improper action on the part of the Sovereign the surrender of the Crown lands by William IV. and Queen Victoria included the surrender of the casual revenues. The Duchy of Lancaster had never been included in the Crown lands. There was to a certain extent a distinction, but it was a distinction without a difference, as far as the present right of the State was concerned. When Henry IV. came to the Throne he represented the White Rose in the Wars of the Roses—["No, no," laughter, and Ministerial cries of "Edward."]—well, he would say when "the Henry" came to the Throne [renewed laughter and interruption]—
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Henry IV. represented the Red Rose and Edward IV. the White Rose.
  *MR. LABOUCHEREreplied that he might represent the blue rose for all he cared, so far as his argument was concerned, but when Henry IV. came to the throne he possessed the Duchy of Lancaster as his own private property. He passed an Act separating it from the rest of the Crown lands, which proved that at that time at least the Crown lands were not regarded as the private property of the Sovereign. But he claimed that the lands of the Duchy had been his property, and they remained his own private property when he was King. When Edward IV. came to the Throne he forfeited these lands, and then he passed an Act in identical terms, making them the special property of himself and his heirs. When George III. was on the Throne he passed an Act declaring that he was possessed
  1222
  by himself and his heirs and successors of these lands; but he was possessed of these lands in precisely the same way as he was possessed, as the representative of the State, of other Crown lands. He called attention to the doctrines of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because they were contrary to the doctrines which had been held by the Whigs from time immemorial; and he was only renewing the protest of all old and respectable Whigs. In looking to the total of the Civil List to which the House was asked to assent, the actual amount received from the Duchy of Lancaster and from the Vote proposed was £530,000; but from the Estimates there were voted £25,000 for pensions, yachts £23,000, palaces £18,000, and carrying luggage £1,000. The last-named was a curious Vote. It was to be found in the Navy Estimates, though the luggage was carried by train. When the late Queen came to the Throne Parliament voted £385,000. At that time the Duchy of Lancaster produced only £5,000, the Estimate based on the Civil List amounting to £590,000. When her late Majesty married, £30,000 a year was voted to the Prince Consort. As showing what the action of the then House was, it might be pointed out that the Liberal Government of the day proposed that there should be £50,000 voted for the Prince Consort, but Mr. Sibthorpe, a Conservative Member, moved to reduce the sum to £30,000, and, thanks to the votes of some Radicals and of almost the entire Conservative party, the Vote was reduced to that amount. That was a Very excellent example for the House to follow on the present occasion. The Civil List of her late. Majesty and the Prince Consort then consisted of £415,000 voted, and as at that time the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster were £15,000, the total of the Civil List was £430,000, or £100,000 less than the Souse was asked to say was needed for his present Majesty and his Consort. Caking the reductions which had been made in the expenditure thrown upon the List and the amounts now thrown upon the Estimates, the difference between the two Civil Lists amounted to the enormous sum of £160,000.
  Coming to the classes and the various items of expenditure upon which

  1223
  they were based, it would be seen that Class 2 represented the salaries of the Household and retiring allowances, in regard to which it was proposed to grant £126,000, as against £131,000, a reduction of £5,000. But the class was relieved of £12,000 odd by the reduction of posts and salaries at once, and of £10,000 for pensions. The relief on those two items amounted to £22,000, but it was in reality greater, because the reduction of £12,000 did not include the reductions contemplated in regard to political officers. It was perfectly true that there was added to this class a charge of £10,000 for the personal staff of the Sovereign, but the country had nothing to do with that; it was simply removing it from, one class to another. The amount was paid by the late Sovereign out of her. Privy Purse, and the only result of the present arrangement was that the Privy Purse would gain to the extent of this amount. Allowing, however, for the personal staff, it was very evident that, as compared with the same class in the last Civil List, the reduction ought to be not £5,000, but £26,000. The next class was the most important, namely, the expenses of the Household. During the last reign this expenditure was reckoned at £172,000, and it was now proposed to put it down at £193,000, an increase of £21,000. But the increase was very much more than that, if the charges to be met were taken into consideration. For instance, the class was relieved of £10,000 in regard to the internal decorations of Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace; of £4,000 for the Royal Hunt; of £5,000 for the Mistress of the Robes; and of £5,000 for the "Queen's Premiums"; making a total relief of £24,000. This amount, added to the increase of £21,000, made a difference of £45,000 as compared with the late reign. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the fact that during the later period of her reign the late Sovereign had been obliged to meet deficiencies from the Privy Purse. During the last five years of the reign the average so taken was £11,000. Therefore, if anything could be made of that argument, the amount added should be, not £45,000, but £11,000. In regard to this deficiency, taking the whole reign—and it had to be remembered that her late Majesty's
  1224
  retirement was only a temporary ones and that during her happy married life she entertained very largely—the total amount taken from the Privy Purse for the expenses of the Household was £632,000. As to the basis upon which the amount allocated to this class was recommended, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not so lucid as in his general observations. The Report said that it was—
  "In order to ensure that no restriction should be put upon the hospitality of the Sovereign, and that his comfort should not be interfered with"—
  It was difficult to see how, when speaking of these hundreds of thousands of pounds, the word "comfort" could be used. As to the hospitality of the Sovereign, Her late Majesty, even during her retirement, had the usual parties given by a Sovereign; there were drawing-rooms, levees, State concerts, and balls; and he failed to see why any more was needed to maintain the state and dignity of the Crown. The only persons who would gain by that increase were a very few of the shopkeepers in London. The vast majority of those who would have to pay did not go, under any circumstances, to these parties, and they would be perfectly well satisfied if the Court continued to be maintained as it was by Queen Victoria. The whole Civil List that the House is asked to voter is based upon the principle of reducing the ceremony and adding to the Privy Purse of the Sovereign. For the Privy Purse the House was asked to vote £110,000, to which would have to be added £60,000 from the Duchy of Lancaster and the unappropriated balances, bringing the amount up to £178,000. The Privy Purse was at the same time relieved of £10,000 in regard to personal staff; the £12,000 for non-effective service under Classes 2 and 3 also went to it. Thus the Privy Purse was really more than £200,000. Let that be compared with the amount voted to the, late Queen. On her accession to the Throne the Privy Purse, including the revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster and the unappropriated balances, amounted to £73,000. On the marriage of the Queen an additional £60,000 was voted, with £30,000 for the Prince Consort, while the revenues

  1225
  from the Duchy of Lancaster had risen to £15,000. It was therefore £113,000.
  Looking at the whole question, he failed to see that any sort of a case had been made out for the increase now proposed. On the Committee he had suggested that there should be granted to the Sovereign a lump sum of £415,000, that being the amount of the Civil List granted to the late Queen and the Prince Consort, which with the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster would bring the amount up to £475,000. He would leave the expenditure of this money to the Sovereign. It was not the duty of the Committee to pry into all these small matters of expenditure, and, as far as he was concerned, it was a matter of no importance whether the Sovereign chose to spend the money in one way or another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given as a special reason why the Committee should have confidence in the present King that he was an excellent business man; but it appeared to him that a want of confidence was shown by the Government in proposing allocations as to the spending. He apprehended that the real reason for these allocations was that in the Civil List of Queen Victoria there was a proviso that in the case of a deficit in one class and a surplus in, another, the surplus in the one might be used to meet the deficit in the other; but that, as he understood the proviso, when there was a surplus in one class and no deficit in any other, the unexpended surplus remained in the Treasury. That, however, was not the view of the law officers of the Crown, and such surpluses went to the Privy Purse, with the result that the transfers to the Privy Purse amounted altogether to £650,000 during the late reign. Another objection to this mode of allocating the amounts to be spent was, that many of the items of expenditure put down by the Committee as being desirable or necessary were not such as should receive the approval of the House. One item was for political or parliamentary officers, the amount being £13,100. Most of these officers were noblemen, and went out of office on a change of Ministry. This payment was simple bribery, in order to induce Gentlemen in the Upper House to take a favourable view of the Government in power. He
  1226
  read in the newspapers a little while ago and was asked as a Liberal to rejoice over the fact, that the Earl of Buckinghamshire had seen the error of his ways as a Conservative and had joined the Liberal party. He did not see any special reason to rejoice, but still he rejoiced to a certain extent over one repentant sinner. But two weeks afterwards he read that the Earl of Buckinghamshire had become a Lord in. Waiting, with £600 a year. The Liberal party wanted none of these bought, recruits, whether they were noblemen or anybody else. The House would probably be astounded to hear that one of the Whips of the House was paid out of the Civil List. Under ordinary circumstances, any question with regard to a Whip could be raised on his salary in the Estimates, but in this case it was not so, because he was paid £900 or £1,000 a year as a Whip from the Civil List. To show how absolutely unneeded a large number of these political officers were, he referred to the chief State officers in the Department of the Lord Steward. The total amount voted for the Department was £28,000. The Treasurer received £700, the Comptroller, £700, the Master of the Household, £1,156, the Paymaster of the Household, £1,130, the Secretary,£1,000; and at the head of these gentlemen, who certainly could do between them the business of looking after the £28,000, a large, portion of which was drawn by themselves, was the Lord Steward, who not only received £2,000, but had the right of using the carriages of the Court. One reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the increase in the Civil List was that the present Court would require more horses than the last Court. If that was so, why should not the right of the Lord Steward and other such ornamental sinecurists to use the horses of the Court be withdrawn? Another thing, which would scarcely commend itself to the Nonconformist conscience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, was an item of £6,000 for "Ecclesiastical officers and allowances." Among these officers were thirty-six chaplains, each of whom received £40 per annum. The duty of each chaplain was to preach once before the Sovereign, but they could be relieved of this duty by a payment of £3. Most of these

  1227
  chaplains, he suspected, paid the £3, and were thus £37 to the good for doing absolutely nothing. But it was not so much the question of the amount; it was the absurdity of having thirty-six chaplains. Surely such a number could not be necessary whether for a sovereign or for any other human being. There was, however, a graver objection, and that was that by imposing upon the Sovereign the necessity of spending £6,000 in ecclesiastical officers and allowances the House was practically further endowing the Church of England. He was in favour of doing away with the endowments at present possessed by the Church of England, in which view most of the Members of the Opposition concurred, but probably every Member of the House would agree that they ought not, under the guise of the Civil List, to give to this endowed Church a further endowment of £6,000. Then there was the Poet Laureate. Why was such an absurdity continued? There were distinguished men who had held the office, and others who were not so distinguished. He did not wish to allude to anyone personally, but there must be in the minds of every Member of the House the names of one or two—one, if the Committee liked—whose verses, putting them at the highest standard, certainly were not worth 5s. taken in the gross. Another such officer was the Examiner of Plays. Why in the name of common sense should the Examiner of Plays be a Court official? There were dozens more of similar appointments, and the House of Commons ought not to accept the responsibility of advising His Majesty to maintain them. His suggestion to give the Sovereign a fixed sum, to be spent as he chose, was a thoroughly sound and reasonable one, and it was far more respectful to the King than the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  With regard to the sum total, he personally did not see the advantage of a Court. He regarded it as a mediaeval survival, the tendency of which was to create a spirit of flunkeyism in the nation. This was not an impeachment of the principle of monarchy, because monarchy was in no sense involved in a Court. If he had his way, he would give the head of the State some such amount as was given to the French
  1228
  President, and do away entirely with Court ceremonials, but unfortunately the common sense of the nation did not keep pace with his own on this matter. He frankly admitted that, and therefore he had to accept things as they stood. If, however, people insisted on having a Court, they should look at the matter of the amount needed for it in a thoroughly business spirit. While he believed the question of amount should be dealt with generously, he really could not see why the lavish prodigality suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be adopted. One ground adduced for it was that care should be taken that the Sovereign did not incur debt. He believed that George IV. would have incurred debt no matter how much had been given him. It depended upon the Sovereign on the Throne, and he was perfectly prepared to show his confidence in the King by giving him a certain sum of money, and he believed that whatever sum was given the King would not incur debt or spend more. The country was passing through an orgie of extravagance, but he was happy to say that there had been to a considerable extent an awakening to the fact. He tendered his thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he believed that his speeches in the House had tended to a great extent to the awakening of the country to the folly of the course that was being pursued. There seemed to be an idea abroad that money was to be squandered for the sake of squandering it, that because the Budget went up by leaps and bounds in millions of pounds, there was no need to look after the thousands, while to suggest a reduction of £1,000 here or £1,000 was something mean and preposterous. The times were out of joint for this lavish and reckless expenditure. A war was proceeding which was admittedly costing a good deal of money, and every year the country had additional claims made upon it for outlay in regard to the Army and to the Navy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been obliged to impose fresh taxes which weighed heavily on industry; he had not only been compelled to suspend the Sinking Fund, but he had been obliged also to throw the expense of the greater portion of the war upon posterity. If they did not fulfil their bounden duties as guardians of the public

  1229
  purse, of examining closely every proposal for expenditure which was brought before them there would be nothing left for education, for bettering the lot of the poor man, for old-age pensions, and other most important objects. Working-men did not desire this expenditure. [Cries of "Yes."] Well, he should like to see how the working-men's representatives would vote on this occasion. He should be very much astonished if a large majority of the working-men's representatives in this House voted against the Amendment which he had proposed. Did the Liberals throughout the country want this grandiose Court? If they did not, they should watch how their Members voted. Upon this question the Liberals were united—outside this House, liberals throughout the country were opposed to any sort of increase in the expenditure upon the Court, and he could prove to the House that this was so. In the year 1889 there was a Committee appointed, and a proposal was put before that Committee to grant a sum of money to the children of the then Prince of Wales. The late Mr. Gladstone advocated that proposal, but he opposed it on the Committee. The hon. Member for Morpeth and himself were the only Members on that Committee who voted against the proposal. He renewed his objections in the House of Commons, and he did not believe that, including the Front Bench, there were ten Liberals who voted against his proposals. Some of them said to him, "Do not you think a protest would be better, without a division?" "No," he replied, "and I will tell you why—I want to see how you vote." Many of them came to him afterwards and said that although they had been in doubt and hesitation about voting for his motion, when the election came round and they went to their constituencies they found that the most popular vote which they had given during the whole Parliament was that recorded against any augmentation of the sum spent upon the Court. He felt that would also be the result in the present instance. He was convinced that the Liberals outside the House were stalwarts in the doctrines of economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and a few other hon. Members of this House, including himself, stood together in the cause of economy. He begged, therefore, to move the reduction
  1230
  of the sum of £470,000 to £415,000. He did so because that was the amount voted to the late Queen and the Prince Consort. It would be open to any hon. Member to move a still further reduction when the Bill came on before the House.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£470,000' (for the King's Civil List), in order to insert '£415,000.'" (Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That '£470,000' stand part of the proposed resolution."
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEcomplained that the working classes had not been represented on the Committee which inquired into this matter. In a matter of this kind, affecting, as it did, not only public expenditure but also a question of principle, some Member at least who was entitled to speak for the working classes ought to have found a place upon that Committee. He should support the Amendment moved by his hon. friend the Member for Northampton, and he should also divide against the motion as a whole. This was not the occasion upon which increased expenditure should be submitted to the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given as one reason for this proposed increase that the cost of living had increased. He was glad to have that acknowledgment from so responsible an authority. It was a common fiction in this country that the cost of living during the last fifty years had decreased. That was certainly not the case, and he was glad to find that this fact had now been admitted in high quarters, and he trusted that at a later stage of the session, when they were considering the wages paid to the men employed by the State, that fact would be borne in mind. If it was necessary to increase the amount voted to His Majesty because of an increase in the cost of living, by what process of reasoning did the right hon. Gentleman justify the reductions in the salaries of officers and attendants in and about the Court, which were being cut down in a cheeseparing manner. The salary of the Treasurer of the Household had been reduced from £900 to £700 a year, or a reduction of £200. The salary of the Comptroller of the Household had been reduced by a like amount, and the Vice-

  1231
  Chamberlain's salary had also been reduced by £200 a year. The allowances of the lords-in-waiting had been reduced £100 per annum, and, in addition to this, two of them had been dispensed with. The salary of the eaptain of the gentlemen-at-arms had been reduced by £200 per annum. The amount to be paid to the captain of the yeomen of the guard had been reduced by £200, and the sum paid to the Master of the Horse had been reduced by £500 a year. He could not understand why there was such a cheeseparing policy in regard to the salaries of the attendants of the Court while at the same time an increase was being made in the amount voted to the King and his Royal Consort. It had been stated that this was being done because of the generous action of the Sovereign in handing over to the State certain revenues which by right belonged to the King. It was now understood that those revenues were not the personal property of the Sovereign. It would be within the recollection of the House that, when the Civil List Committee was being appointed, he endeavoured to secure the adoption of an Amendment instructing the Committee to present to the House a Report showing the whole of the expenditure upon royalty and the sources of income of His Majesty. His Majesty, in addition to what was voted in this House by the Civil List and what he derived from the Duchy of Lancaster, was also an officer in various regiments, for which presumably he received his salary. In dealing with this matter the nation should understand how much was being paid to the Royal Family in order that they might be able to decide whether the Royal Family was worth the money. He also wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impart to the Committee whether the amount allotted to the Queen Consort would be paid to Her Majesty direct, or would it be handed over to His Majesty to be disposed of at his good will and pleasure? If they voted that money it should be paid direct into Her Majesty's account, and not handed over to her husband. It was not his intention at that stage to make anything in the nature of a long speech. There would be other opportunities for going into detail upon the various items
  1232
  included in the Civil List. He would, however, again point out that when taxes were being increased, when trade was depressed and wages were going down, when thousands of the employees of the State had clamoured in vain for years to have their wages increased from 19s. a week to 24s. a week, it was not a suitable time to ask the House to vote what amounted to an increase of £100,000 a year to the income of His Majesty the King and the Queen. If an example of economy was to be set, for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer pleaded so eloquently, that example should be set in high places. It could not be expected that the other spending departments of the State would pay much heed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's warning in regard to economy, when they found the very highest officers of the State increasing their expenditure in connection with the occupants of the Throne to an extent which had never occurred before. For those reasons he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was sure that neither in this House nor in the country would there be any disposition to make other than the most generous provision for the Sovereign and his Consort. If he were to make any criticism of the proposal now before the Committee it would be, not that the provision were too great, but that it was hardly great enough. When they considered the great benefits they owed to the fact that they had a Monarchy firmly established in this country, he thought it would ill-become them to higgle or haggle over the sum to be paid to their gracious Majesties. Their Sovereign was the head of the whole British nation, and as such they expected him to show that magnificence which would make him a fitting ceremonial head of this country. He only rose to occupy a few moments of the time of the Committee in order to ask two specific questions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of his points had been mentioned by the hon. Member opposite who had just spoken. He thought this country had always taken the greatest interest in and felt the greatest

  1233
  love and affection for that gracious lady whom they had hitherto known as the Princess of Wales, and who was now the Queen Consort. The Privy Purse was set down at £110,000, including, as he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the provision for the Queen Consort. The Queen Consort, he was informed, had a separate. Court and a separate establishment, including even a separate Attorney General, and he desired to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could inform the Committee what part of the £110,000 was to be allocated to the Queen herself. Another question he wished to raise was a small one, although it was not without importance. They were told in the Report that the pensions granted under Clauses 5 and 6 of the Civil List Act were to be separately charged on the Consolidated Fund. That raised a very important point, for those pensions amounted last year to about £20,000. He understood that they were distributed as an act of bounty by the Monarch, and because of that they were withdrawn, and properly withdrawn, from all control on the part of this House. He was aware that by the Civil List Act a regulation was laid down that those pensions must be confined to persons who had rendered personal service to the Monarch or to the State in some capacity. That provision only applied to the pensions so long as they were on the Civil List. The 6th section of the Act provided:—
  "That the pensions which may hereafter be charged upon the Civil List Revenues shall be granted to such persons only as have just claims on the Royal beneficence, or who by their personal services to the. Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science and attainments in literature and the arts, have merited the gracious consideration of their Sovereign and the gratitude of their country."
  So long as those pensions formed part of the Civil List they were subject to that condition. It was now proposed that they should no longer form part of the Civil List and therefore they would cease to be subject to that condition. When a sum amounting to £20,000 last year, which had hitherto been in the personal disposition of the Monarch, was taken from that category and placed under the absolute control of a Minister, it ought not to be made a permanent charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and removed from the control of Parliament.
  1234
  He had no objection to there being no Parliamentary control when the pensions were distributed by the Monarch, but when they were handed over to a Minister, who was to be allowed to spend £1,200 this year and £1,200 the next year, he thought it was most objectionable and most improper that such a sum should be put into the hands of a Minister without any Parliamentary control. As long as it was the act of the King it was all right.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It will be the act of the King in the future.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could not see how that could be the case if the pensions did not form part of the Civil List.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: What I meant was that they were not included in the £385,000.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: From year to year those pensions had been issued by virtue of the Civil List Act, which created the right to grant those pensions as part of the Civil List. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had arranged that they should no longer be part of the Civil List, and he said at the same time that they were still to be granted as an act of the King. His contention was that as soon as they ceased to be on the Civil List the granting of the pensions was the act of the Minister. The pensions would at once be withdrawn from all the safeguards put upon them by the Act which he had quoted, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was right in suggesting that they should be left as a permanent charge on the Consolidated Fund without any Parliamentary control whatever.
  *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the House of Commons obviously laboured under some disadvantage in discussing this matter, in so far as the Committee appointed by this House to consider His Majesty's Civil List were practically unanimous in the decisions they arrived at and in the recommendations of the report which they now had before them. But notwithstanding that disadvantage, and in spite of the practical unanimity of the Committee which was appointed to inquire into this question,

  1235
  he desired to associate himself with the protest which had been made by the Member for Northampton and the Member for Merthyr Tydvil against any increase being made to what he considered the large and generous sum already voted by the nation to the King and Queen. He never expected any wide divergence of opinion upon that Committee as it was constituted. One did not expect too much from any Civil List Committee. Her late Majesty had only recently passed away, and it stood to reason that that fact would weigh considerably in favour of any decision which the Committee might come to. He was not particularly impressed either with the conclusions or the recommendations of the Committee, and he was not satisfied that all the information that could have been presented to that Committee for a full and correct finding was submitted to it. The Committee's deliberations had been more or less secret. The universal respect for the late Queen undoubtedly coloured much that the Committee had recommended, and the universal respect for the present Queen-Consort undoubtedly appealed to the Members of the Committee. When they added to those facts political expediency and the prospects of preferment it was not surprising that the hon. Member for Northampton was found in splendid isolation, and that he was the one bold man struggling with adversity. He preferred to be with the minority upon this occasion. He did not think the very plausible speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had materially affected the situation. He knew those proposals had the concurrence of the official Opposition. On this point he agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton that whenever they found the two Front Benches unanimous upon anything there were good public reasons for suspecting that concurrence.
  He did not intend to approach this question from the point of view of haggling about details. The increased cost of living had been advanced as a reason for this increased expenditure, but that was hardly an argument one liked to hear in connection with an allowance which was £385,000, and which was to be raised, roughly, to over
  1236
  £500,000. This increase in the cost of living within the last few years did not apply to Royal personages or Royal palaces, because that increase, so far as the working men and the upper and middle classes were concerned, was merely in the direction of increased rent. He thought also it would be invidious for a Labour representative, whose chief occupation was arguing for increases of salary, when circumstances warranted it, for wage earners, to argue, as some Members might think, the other way that evening. But it seemed to him there was a great deal of difference between asking an increase of salary For people whose income was already below the level of subsistence and defending and demanding an increase of a salary which was now considerably over £1,000 per day, and which would, under the recommendation in this Report, be more than £1,500 per day. Notwithstanding all that could be said in favour of this increase he intended to support the Amendment. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, whom he often followed in his excursions against extravagance, and whom he invariably supported when he pleaded for economy, was under the impression that this was a popular Vote in the country. There had been many things put forward as popular during the last two or three years that subsequent proceedings had corrected, and time had not justified all that had been said of their popularity. The same would be said of this additional burden with others when they were felt. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had given as his reason for supporting this Vote that the King and Queen were the ceremonial bead of the nation. That was true, but they ought to be something more. He trusted that the monarchy would never be reduced so low that the fact of their being the ceremonial head of the State would be put forward as the chief reason why their salary should be increased, If that only be true, there was an argument for reduction or abolition. It was one of the proud privileges and duties of Members of the British House of Commons—and this was what differentiated this country from all other countries—to criticise if they saw fit, and to argue for the increase or the reduction of the salary of any public official from the head of

  1237
  the State down to the charwoman who dusted the, benches of the House of Commons. He sincerely hoped they would never find any Member of the House of Commons reluctant to speak and vote against any proposal to increase a salary when he disagreed with the attempt. He attached very little importance to the ceremonial side of monarchy. Her late Majesty was personally very much opposed to ceremonial, and he believed she would perhaps have lived longer had she not taken part in quite so many in recent years. She endeared herself to the people of this country by other qualities and characteristics than a love of ceremonial. It had been put forward that the Crown had to be maintained with honour and dignity. He thought £385,000, in addition to palaces and other emoluments, was quite sufficient for maintaining the honour and dignity of the reigning monarchs. He ventured to say that those who put forward that as an argument for the increase were casting a reflection on the past reign, and he had yet to learn that relative poverty of the purse on the part of the monarch was incompatible with that monarch acting with dignity, honour, and respect of the highest quality. On the contrary, he believed that the personal wants of Her late Majesty could have been satisfied with a few thousand pounds. He ventured to say that in many cases money was squandered on useless formalism, stilted ceremonial, and hosts of dependents, not to say flunkeys, whom he was not so sure that Her Majesty wanted. He protested against the increase being voted on the ground that the King and Queen were the ceremonial head of the nation. The arrangement with her late Majesty was that she should receive £385,000, including a sum of £13,200 for Royal bounties, alms, and special services, and beyond that the privilege of creating pensions up to £1,200 a year. Hon. Members contrasted this apparently diminished sum with the £700,000 at which it previously stood. But since the bargain was made, at the accession of the late Queen, many of the charges that previously devolved upon the Privy Purse were transferred to the Consolidated Fund.
  The proposal before the House was that the £385,000 should be increased to £530,000, and, as the hon. Member for
  1238
  Northampton had proved, when they included a number of other things which were borne by the Consolidated Fund, such as the cost of palaces, pensions, and grants to other members of the Royal Family, the total cost to this country of the Royal Family was nearer £800,000 than £385,000. Some hon. Members might want proof. Well, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given it in the Report. Four yachts had been paid for, and their annual cost for maintenance amounted to anything between £30,000 and £35,000. The maintenance and adequate repair of royal palaces, parks, and pleasure grounds in the first fifty years of Her Majesty's reign alone cost the country the enormous sum of something like £7,000,000. He was not arguing the question of Republicanism versus Monarchy, but he was speaking from the point of view of money received for services rendered. When they considered the enormous amount spent on royal palaces, parks, and gardens, together with pensions, we had the extraordinary fact that during the sixty-three years of the last reign the aggregate charges received from the Civil List and the Consolidated Fund was something like £35,000,000. The hon. Member for Northampton had disposed of the illusion and the delusion that we ought to increase the salary of the King and Queen on the ground that we at some time or other had taken over the Crown lands, which, if they had not been taken from the monarchs, would have been bringing in an extravagant revenue. He did not think there was any warrant, any legal or historical justification, for that fact; but even if there were years ago revenues from the Crown lands which were commuted to a lump sum to settle outstanding disputes, it seemed to him that the lump sum of £385,000, plus the allowances to other members of the Royal Family, was sufficient for the purposes of their high offices. Another argument put forward in the newspapers—it was curious how some papers could argue for increases of expenditure on some things and denounce it in others—was that the Civil List of other monarchs was greater than that of the King and Queen of Great Britain. Well, we ought to compare like with like. We ought to see what other Civil Lists had to bear, and what some monarchs with larger

  1239
  salaries had to disburse. For instance, the German Emperor received £786,000. Anyone who visited Prussia, and especially Berlin, must see—and this was the only point on which he agreed with the German Emperor—that he spent an enormous proportion of his salary in art patronage, in decorating Berlin and other cities with statuary and art objects, a practice that might well be followed by those in high places here. There was no comparison between the claims which an autocratic Monarch had to meet and those made upon the Monarchy we fortunately had in England.
  He objected to this particular increase at the present moment because of what we had seen in the British Empire recently. We had seen in the last ten years two or three, it might be four, famines in India, the people there living on 30s. per head per annum, people whose poverty was beyond endurance, and who were continually claiming the relief we ought to give; we had seen during the past two years a love of ceremonial, a love of display, beget a love of expansion; and we had seen all this departure from our serious past leading us into excursions to the far corners of the earth, and the result was that we had wars and rumours of wars in every part of the Empire to such an extent that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought up a Budget showing the largest expenditure of any year in the history of the Empire. It seemed to the hon. Member that with famines in India, with a sugar tax and a coal tax, with a war sure to involve us in as much expenditure in the future as it had done in the past, and with a period of unemployment upon us, that those in high places ought to set a good example, and not ask for increases of salary. If he were satisfied that the King would get this money he should probably hesitate to vote against it, but it would go in useless formalism and stilted Court functions, of which we had had too much. He would suggest that two-thirds of the present officials, such as the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, the Master of the Horse, lords in waiting, grooms in waiting, gentlemen at arms, yeomen, officers, and so forth, might be dispensed with, and in that way the King might obtain an extra £50,000 or £60,000 a year. Some hon.
  1240
  Members might say that was an exaggeration, but if they would turn to the Report, at page 6, they would find an item of £125,000 for officers of the Household. The expenses of His Majesty's Household were mainly swallowed up by useless officers. Some would say that the throwing of £500,000 or £250,000 extra at the heads of the King and Queen was the best way the House of Commons and the country could testify their loyalty. He did not believe that loyalty to the Throne or to their Majesties was in any sense measured by the amount of money the House or the country, either willingly or reluctantly, gave to the Privy Purse or the Royal Family. Some would say that the honour and dignity of the Crown must be satisfied. He said it was more than met by the present ceremonial and the money voted to such purposes. He remembered when the present King came to the Throne all the society journals shouted with joy at the prospect of ceremonial after ceremonial, and displays of Royal glory such as had not been experienced under Her late Majesty. Did Her late Majesty win the respect of the people as Queen, woman, wife, and mother, by the money spent on Court ceremonial? She earned loyalty, gratitude, and respect in many quarters, not by her service as a figure in processions, but by the lack of all this ceremonial. I saw the Queen on Jubilee day. Strip that pageant of all its soldiers, sailors, and martial panoply, there was still a figure that evoked respect. It was a plainly dressed simple old woman guarded by the respect of the thousands who came to see her as the embodiment of character and duty. He believed that she had a contempt for the whole business for which this additional money was asked. In these days when money was buying Legislatures in other countries; when plutocracy organised was threatening the liberty and freedom of some peoples outside this country; when thrift was being preached to the agricultural labourer who earned 10s. to 14s. a week; when mere money was being worshipped to a slavish extent that it never ought to be worshipped; when people were living above their incomes; when plutocrats were usurping the judgment seats and the places of kings and senators, the time had arrived when we should dispense with the argument

  1241
  and ask ourselves the question—Is any more money necessary for the King and Queen to maintain their Throne with honour and dignity? The answer to that question was to be found when we looked back on the sixty-three years of Her Majesty's reign, which was an emphatic contradiction of the statement that more money was needed. What evoked respect was character in those whom the State exalted, and money without it was poor indeed. At a time like this to increase our Civil List was a mistake. He knew that there were soldiers' widows walking the streets of this big city—women whose husbands had died in South Africa, and only a few days ago two soldiers' daughters were taken up off the streets near Hampstead Heath. In these days when there was necessity for retrenchment, when from the highest quarters they ought to have lessons how to live under rather than above their incomes, neither King nor Queen should approach Parliament for such a substantial addition to their salary. He was none the less loyal to the King who said His Majesty had been
  wrongly advised in asking this increase. It did not bring him any more respect from people whose respect was worth having. But this Vote would carry the lesson to many that we might have monarchy at too high a price if we had to pay a salary to enable the King to vie with such men as Barney Barnato, Beit, and Carnegie, a transient species of creature who he hoped for the benefit of humanity would not last so long as the monarchy would last. It was because he believed that it was ill-advised, extravagant, unnecessary, and unjustifiable that he should have pleasure in supporting the hon. Member for Northampton, and in doing so he believed he was not only voicing the opinion of the working class of his constituency, but that he was expressing the views of hundreds of thousands of loyal working men who believed that the King and Queen had quite enough for the discharge of their Royal duties.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 62. (Division List No. 175).

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Aird, Sir John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir E.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Garfit, William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Austin, Sir John

  Colville, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cox, Irwin Edward B.

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gray Ernest (West Ham)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Groves, James Grimble

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Denny, Col.

  Hain, Edward

  Bill, Charles

  Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Black, Alexander William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Bond, Edward

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Hamilton, Rt.Hn Lord G(Mid'x

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'd'nd'rry)

  Brigg, John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

  Brookfield, Col. Montagu

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Harwood, George

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Butcher, John George

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Caldwell, James

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Helder, Augustus

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

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

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Faber, George Denison

  Holland, William Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Hope, J. F. (Sh'ffield, Brightside

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Stroyan, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Norman, Henry

  Start, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Keswick, William

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Tomkinson, James

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Percy, Earl

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Valentia, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Leng, Sir John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wallace, Robert

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)

  Randles, John S.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol, S

  Rankin, Sir James

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Longsdale, John Brownlee

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rea, Russell

  Webb, Col. William George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Renwick, George

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Maple, Sir John Blundel

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE(Wigt'n

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Rutherford, John

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Milton, Viscount

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tynes'd

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Spear, John Ward

  Sir William Walrond and

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'th'nts

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  NOES.

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Bell, Richard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Blake, Edward

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Malley, William

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Boyle, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burns, John

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Roche, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Mooney, John J.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cullinan, J.

  Murphy, J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tully, Jasper

  Dillon, John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Elibank, Master of

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Mr. Labouchere and Mr.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Doherty, William

  Keir Hardie.

  Original question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHEREmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out "For the
  1244
  Duke of Cornwall and York, £20,000." He said that the Duchy of Cornwall produced £60,000 a year, and he thought

  1245
  that sum, together with the £10,000 a year provided for the Duchess of Cornwall and York, was a sufficient provision for the Duke and Duchess and their young children. When the Duke of Cornwall and York was engaged in a great ceremony, which might or might not be for the benefit of the country, such as his visit to Australia, the cost of the voyage was provided by the nation; he was entertained by the colony, and he believed it was proposed to vote him a sum of £20,000. He thought that was a bad principle to adopt. He complained of the secrecy which had been observed with regard to the Civil List, which put Members to the inconvenience of speaking without notice. The same rule applied to the Budget, but it was necessary in that case to conceal as long as possible the sources of proposed taxation. In the case of the Civil List there was no such necessity, and he thought it would be more convenient if a change were made which would enable the House to have these matters placed before them at an earlier period, so that then they might have some knowledge of what they were discussing, and not have things of this sort sprung upon them as this had been.
  Amendment proposed—
  To leave out "£20,000" (for the Duke of Cornwall and York).—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  Question proposed, "That '£20,000' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
  MR. LLOYD MORGANsaid he should not care to go as far as to support the Amendment, but he desired to say that he did not think the House or the country were called upon to support the grandchildren of the Sovereign. It was the duty of the House and of the country to support the Sovereign in a way that was fitting his great position, and also to provide for the Queen-Consort and the daughters of the Sovereign, but he thought the line ought to be drawn there. He would not have mentioned this matter at all but for the language of the Report of the Committee, which made it perfectly plain that later on an application would be made to the House in respect of an allowance to be made to the children of the Duke of Cornwall
  1246
  and York. He was in the House in 1889 when the Bill known as the Prince of Wales's Children Bill was before it. He was of opinion then and was of opinion now that in the interests of the Royal Family it would be well that questions of this kind were as far as possible kept out of the House. He was strongly of opinion that there was no obligation on the country to support the grandchildren of the Sovereign, and in his judgment the Committee had made a great mistake in not making a final settlement of the question.
  CAPTAIN GREVILLEsaid that the working classes of the country were just as desirous of maintaining the dignity of Royalty as any other class in the Empire. There were two points to be considered—equal dignity with other Courts, and the position in which His Majesty had been placed by the surrendering to Parliament the revenues of Crown lands, etc.—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question now under discussion is the sum to be allotted to the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York.
  CAPTAIN GREVILLEpointed out that there were many dependent Courts under the rule of Great Britain, and that those Courts attached great importance to splendour and magnificence. He thought that the Duke of Cornwall should have an allowance equal to that of his father when Prince of Wales.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that the Committee had been placed in some little difficulty with regard to the amount that might be voted to the Duke of Cornwall and York. The amount was £20,000 a year for the Duke and £10,000 a year to the Duchess, but in addition to this there was the revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall, which amounted to about £67,000 a year. The difficulty which he felt was with regard to the revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, a great deal of which had been invested in London property let on long leases, which were now beginning to fall in. There was no information as to the value of that property, and he thought

  1247
  it would be much better for the country if it took the revenue of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster for a lump sum cash down and farmed them for the benefit of the nation. Nothing worse could be conceived than the fact of the Heir Apparent becoming a great landlord. Could anything worse be conceived than an eviction being carried out under his name? The country should take over the Duchies and pay the Heir Apparent out of the Consolidated Fund.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he had very carefully considered the matter referred to by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He had come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to alter the existing state of things. The revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall ought to remain in the position they had been in for hundreds of years. I No conceivable State management could be better than the estates were now under. The whole matter was debated and decided in the House on the accession of Her late Majesty. He did not anticipate any large immediate increase in the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall, but in 1910 there would be a further falling in of ground leases in connection with the London property. The property was in a bad condition, and would require large expenditure.
  The relations between landlord and tenant on this property had been admirable. He submitted that the annuity proposed for the Duke of Cornwall and York was a moderate one, and he hoped the Committee would now be allowed to come to a decision.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he regretted to hear the view put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, in his view, it would be far better if the control were taken from Royalty altogether. He urged such a course because he recollected the King when Prince of Wales referring to his difficulty as an owner of property in Lambeth, which was part of the Duchy of Cornwall. His Majesty evidently thought that to be an owner of slum property was not an ideal position for a king to be placed in. Neither the King nor the Heir Apparent should be put in the relationship of landlord with regard to the people, especially with regard to some of the property in that Duchy.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that directly the leases of the property to which the hon. Member referred fell in, the property would be put in thorough repair.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 58. (Division List No. 176).

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brunner, Sir John T.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Burt, Thomas

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Butcher, John George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Carlile, William Walter

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Austin, Sir John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Dunn, Sir William

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Edwards, Frank

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

  Elibank, Master of

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W (Leeds

  Chapman, Edward

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Emmott, Alfred

  Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

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

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Faber, George Denison

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fenwick, Charles

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Colville, John

  Fergusson, RtHn.Sir J.(Manc'r

  Black, Alexander William

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bond, Edward

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Brassey, Albert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Brigg, John

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles)

  Flower, Ernest

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Denny, Colonel

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Garfit, William

  Lowther, Rt. Hon James (Kent)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingsh.)

  Smith, H C (N'rth'mb., Tyneside

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

  Spear, John Ward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northnts

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hain, Edward

  Milton, Viscount

  Strachey, Edward

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Stroyan, John

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Thomas, F. Freeman. (Hastings

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tomkinson, James

  Helder, Augustus

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tufnell, Lieut,-Col. Edward

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sh'ff'ld

  Holland, William Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff'ld, Brightside

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

  Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Howard, John (Kent, F'versh'm

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Webb, Colonel William Geo.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Purvis, Robert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Randles, John S.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Keswick, William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Renwick, George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wylie, Alexander

  Leigh-Benuett, Henry Currie

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Leng, Sir John

  Rigg, Richard

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

  Younger, William

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Rutherford, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Sir William Walrond and

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

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

  Delany, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

  Dillon, John

  Leamy, Edmund

  Ambrose, Robert

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Lundon, W.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Boland, John

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Boyle, James

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Caldwell, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mooney, John J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Murphy, J

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hammond, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Crean, Eugene

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Kendal (T'pper'ry Mid

  Cullinan, J.

  Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  1250

  1251

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

  O'Malley, William

  Tully, Jasper

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  O'Mara, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  O'Doherty, William

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Mr. Labouchere and Mr.

  O'Dowd, John

  Roche, John

  John Burns.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Original question again proposed.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIErose for the purpose of dividing the Committee against the main question. As a believer in Republican principles, he could not see the uses of the Royal Family. ["Oh, oh."] He was entitled to his opinion, and intended to express it. In the present day the Royal Family, according to his view, was an anachronism. ["Oh, oh.") The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, and it had been repeated by several other Members, that the Crown was growing in importance as the link that bound the Empire together. That argument might be pushed too far. The strength of a chain was measured by its weakest link, and, while Queen Victoria had been a source of strength to the Empire, there had been foolish kings in England before and there might be again, and one foolish king might wreck the Empire in six months. If the Empire was to be held together it would have to be by forces stronger than those which gathered around the occupant of the throne. He also objected to the voting of this money because, as had been said, Court life was the centre of sycophancy, and led to an unhealthy state of public opinion. Everything the occupant of the throne did or left undone, said or left unsaid, was eulogised and glorified as being the highest wisdom. That of itself had a demoralising influence on the nation. As a democrat, he objected to a ruler occupying a position of such power and influence in regard to whose selection the nation had no voice, and he intended to divide the Committee on this question in order that those Members who were so fond of professing democratic principles on the platform at election times might have an opportunity of proving the faith that was in them by a consistent vote in the lobby. He frankly admitted that at the present moment the opinion of working men and of the people generally was favourable to Royalty,
  1252
  but that because they did not understand Royalty or what it meant to them. The duty of working-men's representatives was to teach the working-men that it was inconsistent with the dignity of manhood to admit the principle of hereditary rulers, whether in the House of Lords or on the throne. In days gone by the party now in opposition was a power in the land, and it was then so strong because it was permeated and dominated by the Republican principle. To-day it was weak, ineffective, and shattered, because it had foresworn that principle in common with many others. The object of a working-class party would be to purify the system of government by eliminating from it every element which could not be discussed from the point of view of common-sense, and that test could not possibly be applied to a reigning and Royal Family.
  MR. CREMERsaid he intended to vote with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, but did not care to do so without stating his reasons. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton had been carried he would probably have found himself voting against the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil on the present question, but that Amendment having been rejected he felt it to be his duty to enter a protest against this extravagance and shameful waste of the nation's wealth. He knew from his experiences of the working classes of the country that, while unfortunately they favoured monarchical institutions, they were bitterly opposed to the extravagance attending the maintenance of the Royal Family. If a poll were taken of the working classes of the country as to whether the dignity of the Crown might not be maintained upon half the money now voted, he believed there would be an almost unanimous vote in the affirmative, He would be perfectly willing to make an honest, honourable, and economical provision for the maintenance of the

  1253
  Crown and its dignity, but he could not vote for the expenditure of money on the host of sinecures, and in the wasteful manner which had been described by the hon. Member for Northampton.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Where is Chamberlain the Republican!
  *MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he had never, like the Colonial Secretary, avowed himself a Republican, and therefore he was in an independent position in regard to this matter. He should vote against the resolution, not because he objected to a fair and reasonable sum being granted for the maintenance of the state and dignity of the Crown, but because he believed that if the resolution was carried the Sovereign would get more than he really needed. In view of the mania for expenditure which had seized the country, he felt a certain amount of gratitude towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that he had not asked the Committee to vote, say, a couple of millions sterling for the purpose. If the right hon. Gentleman had proposed that amount he believed it would have been accepted by the Committee, and he would have been even more popular on the other side of the House than at present, but perhaps not quite so popular with the Opposition. To show the extraordinary manner in which the Civil List had been piled up he referred to the proceedings before the Civil List Committee. After thorough investigation the estimate of the future annual charge was fixed at £470,000. The Committee came to the conclusion that the sum of £6,000 should no longer be devoted to the Royal Hunt. That item being withdrawn, one would naturally have thought that the total sum would
  have been reduced by that amount. But, instead of that, although all the other heads of expenditure were considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have been fully provided for, this £6,000 had apparently been spread over the other items, so that the total amount remained the same. He asked why it was that the nation did not have the advantage of that £6,000.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That question is very easily answered. After it was decided that in the opinion of the Committee the Hunt should be abolished and this item was struck off, the question of the amount to be allotted to Class 3 came under discussion. In the opinion of all the Committee it was thought that that class required to be increased as compared with the previous reign; I do not think that even the hon. Member himself objected to that. After considerable discussion it was agreed to add to it the amount cut off for the Hunt. I believe that was done with the unanimous consent of the Committee. This much, I remember, that the hon. Member made no objection and did not divide the Committee against it.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the money voted for the Queen Consort will be paid to Her Majesty direct or from the purse of the King.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am afraid I cannot exactly explain the arrangement under which the amount of the Privy Purse will be paid to Her Majesty, but I have no doubt it will reach Her Majesty direct.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 307; Noes, 58. (Division List No. 177.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

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

  Aird, Sir John

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

  Brassey, Albert

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christen.)

  Brigg, John

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Brookfield, Col. Montagu

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

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

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Austin, Sir John

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Black, Alexander William

  Burt, Thomas

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Butcher, John George

  Caldwell, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morgan, David J. (Walthams'w

  Cameron, Robert

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Carlile, William Walter

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morton, Edw. J. C (Devonport)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hain, Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Parker, Gilbert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Chapman, Edward

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Partington, Oswald

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W.

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Percy, Earl

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Colville, John

  Holland, William Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Purvis, Robert

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Randles, John S.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Denny, Colonel

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rea, Russell

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Keswick, William

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Renwick, George

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Kitson, Sir James

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Rigg, Richard

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawson, John Grant

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dunn, Sir William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Edwards, Frank

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rutherford, John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Elibank, Master of

  Leng, Sir John

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Faber, George Denison

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lowe, Francis William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Finch, George H.

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

  Smith, H C (N'rth'umb Tynes'de

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

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

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Spear, John Ward

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants.

  Flower, Ernest

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Strachey, Edward

  Garfit, William

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Stroyan, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Milton, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Grant, Corrie

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  1256

  1257

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Webb, Colonel William George

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

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Tomkinson, James

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'ddersf'd

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  White, Luke (York, E. K.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Valentia, Viscount

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Willoughby de. Eresby, Lord

  Younger, William

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Boyle, James

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Mara, James

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Roche, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Murphy, J.

  Tully, Jasper

  Dillon, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Doogan, F. C.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Mr. John Burns and Mr.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Doherty, William

  Keir Hardie.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  1. Financial.
  Resolved, that there be charged on the Consolidated Fund as from the demise of her late Majesty the following annual payments:—

  For the King's Civil List

  £470,000

  For Retired Allowances:—Such sums as may he required for the payment in each year of retired allowances granted by her late Majesty or by his present Majesty to members of her late Majesty's household not exceeding in all £25,000

  For Civil List Pensions:—Such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of Civil List pensiens already granted or hereafter to be granted.

  For the Duke of Cornwall and York

  £20,000

  For the Duchess of Cornwall and York

  £10,000

  For the Duchess of Cornwall and York in the event of her surviving the Duke of Cornwall and York

  £30,000

  1258

  For his Majesty's daughters

  £18,000

  For Queen Alexandra in the event of her surviving his Majesty the King

  £70,000

  And that provision be made for continuing for a period of six months after the close of the present reign certain payments so charged which would otherwise be then determined.

  2. Amendment of Law.
  Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the law relating to the Civil List, the hereditary revenues, and grants for the Royal Family."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

  DEMISE OF THE CROWN BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  *MR. SPEAKER: There are three Instructions on going into Committee

  1259
  on this Bill, which is a Bill to prevent the demise of the Crown from having any operation on the tenure of office of servants of the Crown. The first Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, proposes that the Committee shall have power to provide that acceptance of office under the Crown shall in no case vacate the seat of a Member of the House of Commons. That has no reference to the tenure of office under the Crown, and is outside the purpose of the Bill. The next Instruction is in the name of the hon. Member for South Donegal, and he proposes—
  "that it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to introduce a clause providing that the provisions of the Bill do not apply to the holding of any office under the Crown when the holder of such office is chairman or director of a public company."
  That is clearly not matter for an Instruction, because it merely limits the operation of the Bill. Whether it may be moved as an Amendment in Committee or not is a matter for the chairman when it comes before him. The other Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, and he proposes that the Committee have—
  "power to make provision that a demise of the Crown, if such occur between the dissolution or expiration of a Parliament, and the day appointed by writ of summons for assembling a new Parliament, shall not render void or in any way affect elections, returns, or other proceedings under writ of summons or other statutory provisions."
  That is a proposal to determine the difficulty which might arise in the case of the demise of the Crown occurring between the summoning and the assembling of a new Parliament; but that is a matter, again, which has no relation to the effect of a demise upon the tenure of office, which is the subject of the Bill. These Instructions are not in order, and I therefore leave the chair.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then do I understand that my Instruction cannot be moved at all?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It may be moved, but it may be ruled out of order.
  Bill considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendmen standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee is out of order, because it conflicts directly with the clause. The proper course for him to take is to reject the clause, and then bring it up in the shape in which he wishes it to be inserted in the Bill.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he presumed, having been called upon, that his Amendment was quite in order. They were now dealing with the case of those who accepted office at the time of the demise of the Crown. He ventured to submit to the Committee that if there was any class who ought to go to their constituents at the time of accepting office under the Crown, it was the members of the Government. If there was any occasion when it was more necessary than any other to get the verdict of a constituency it was when a Minister accepted office at the demise of the Crown. This was the only way in which constituencies would be afforded an opportunity of expressing their opinion and questioning their representatives in regard to the Civil List. If the clause was not amended, the constituencies would have no opportunity of expressing their views.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'office' to insert the words, 'not being an office of profit.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed—"That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press this Amendment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He will press it.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The Amendment extends far beyond the scope of the remarks made by the hon. Member, because he proposes to omit from the operation of this Bill all paid officers of the Crown. That means an immense majority of officers throughout the Empire and abroad in protectorates belonging to His Majesty. This Amendment would deprive the colonies and protectorates of the convenience of the provision which we propose to make for all offices under the Crown, whether with or without profit. The case which the hon. Member wishes to provide against is not affected by the Amendment, because as the law stands Ministers retain office for six months after the demise of the Crown, and if they had any sinister motive of the kind hinted at they would take care to get the Civil List through before six months had expired. The Civil List is entirely under the control of Parliament, and I listened with a little surprise to the argument of the hon. Gentleman because I remember that the terms of his Instruction, which has just been ruled out of order, were—
  "To provide that acceptance of office under the Crown shall in no case vacate the seat of a Member of the House of Commons."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I think the Attorney General has misunderstood the nature and purpose of the Instruction he has just quoted. The intention of my hon. friend in moving this Instruction was to extend the provision to all cases of acceptance of office, and surely that is a logical position to take up. I made this suggestion on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House cheered it. I will not now go into the question of the Civil List. No doubt the Ministers for the time being would, under the existing law, remain in office long enough to carry the Civil List, but if this Bill passes with such an Amendment as is now proposed the members of the Government responsible for that Civil List would have to face their constituents and get their verdict upon it. I do not think the Attorney General's answer to my hon. friend's speech is at all complete, and unless something better is forthcoming I shall be disposed to vote for my hon. friend's Amendment.
  MR. DILLONsupported the Amendment, and said he hoped it would receive a strong measure of support from the House, as this vicious practice had been gaining ground within the last ten or fifteen years. The practice he alluded to was that of exempting Members of Parliament upon accepting emoluments under the Crown from the necessity of going to their constituents. The old practice was that every Member accepting office under the Crown should face his constituents, and he thought that was a very wise course. Some thirty years ago, according to the law, on the demise of the Crown Parliament itself was dissolved, and every Member had to face his constituents. From some points of view he thought that was a very good principle. Under the present system there was the possibility of a very great evil in the too long duration of Parliament. He thought Parliaments should be quinquennial, and they should not be allowed to go on for six or seven years. In the case of the recent demise of the Crown it took place just after a new Parliament was elected. Supposing the election had been postponed, and the demise of the Crown had taken place when Parliament had been in existence five or six years. Would it not have been held, under such circumstances, to have been a good and wholesome thing that, in spite of the desires of the Ministry, Parliament had been dissolved? In the year 1857 the law was altered and Parliament was allowed to sit on after the demise of the Crown, and so hon. Members were saved the expense and annoyance of facing their constituents. It was a natural thing that Ministers should avail themselves of every opportunity to render the facing of their constituents unnecessary, but he thought it was a very good principle that all Ministers of the Crown should, when they accepted office, be compelled to face their constituents. He, therefore, could not see any force in the argument that Ministers should be relieved of this duty. The Attorney General had pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted it would apply, not only to Ministers in this House, but to the innumerable officials outside the House in all parts of the Empire. But so far as these officials were concerned, it was merely a case of re-appointment,

  1263
  a matter involving no trouble or difficulty whatever. This Bill would never have been heard of if these officials alone had been concerned. The Bill was introduced for the special convenience of His Majesty's present Ministers, and he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he hoped the Government would take care to repeal the absurd law which required Ministers of the Crown on taking office to go back to their constituents for re-election. Serious inconvenience was caused by their being debarred from starting their duties for weeks after their appointment, and the result was that the public service suffered. He trusted that the Government would afford the House a legitimate opportunity of considering that matter. Referring to the position of magistrates, he said that they held an office which was not one of profit, and the question had arisen as to whether they ought to be resworn on account of the demise of the Crown. A magistrate could hold his office and discharge his duties without offending against any legal provision, but an announcement had been made by the Home Secretary that it was better that he should be resworn. Why was it better that he should go through an absolutely superfluous ceremony? He hoped the justices of the peace throughout the country would decline to submit to such a farce.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not quite understand the Attorney General's argument. He had told the House that, if this Amendment came into effect, the result would be that a person who held an office of profit under the Crown would have to be re-elected on the demise of the Crown. Was that so?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid this Amendment would make it necessary that all persons who held offices under the Crown should be reappointed.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the general view was that, under the present law, a person holding an office of profit at the expiration of six months would
  1264
  have to be reappointed. He thought that was quite clear. Well, but how about His Majesty's Ministers? He was a little desirous of obtaining information as to the reason for changing the law. Was the present law not good enough? He wanted an answer to that. Was it because it was considered to be an inconvenience that persons holding offices of profit should be liable to be reappointed six months after the demise of the Crown? It lay upon the Attorney General to make out a case for doing what he proposed to do. The hon. Member quoted the Act setting forth the present law, and said he could not understand why they required to alter the law. Had anything occurred? He did not know. In the meantime he must say that on its merits this was a good Amendment, but he was open to conversion and conviction by the Attorney General, for, after all, though he could not understand it, a change of the law might be required. Was the Bill intended for the protection of future placemen and pensioners, or for present and past place-men and pensioners? He observed that the Bill was retrospective so far as it could be.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is discussing the whole Bill. He must confine himself to the Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, Sir, I observe the second clause is a separate clause from this. I really want to know what the purpose and effect of this Bill is.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really now renewing the debate that took place on the Second Reading, and I must invite him to confine himself strictly to the Amendment before the House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had no doubt been a little bit irregular in consequence of not having been present all the time. He wished to know why this Amendment should not be grafted on the change of the law now proposed.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he could not quite accept the Amendment, which he considered was too wide in its scope. The Bill proposed a change

  1265
  the wisdom of which the Committee would recognise. Most Members would probably allow that it was undesirable that the demise of the Crown should vacate every obscure magistracy, or that every justice of the peace should, six months after the death of the Sovereign, be compelled to go through the form of taking a new oath of allegiance to the new Sovereign; but there were certain offices under the Crown which stood in a very exceptional position. There were offices which on being originally accepted had the condition attached that the person must submit to the judgment of the constituency as to the desirability or wisdom of his having taken office. As the law now stood the present Ministers would, if this Bill did not pass, find themselves ipso facto deprived of their office, and, therefore, before the end of June they would have to seek reappointment by the Sovereign and then re-election by their constituents. This statute would do away with that necessity. He suggested that the hon. Member for Mid. Lanarkshire should narrow the scope of his Amendment by adopting these words, "except offices held by Members of the House of Commons." If the hon. Member would accept that suggestion he should be inclined to vote in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. CALDWELLaccepted the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'Crown,' to insert the words 'except offices held by Members of the House of Commons.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that these matters must be dealt with on some principle, and the principle of the Bill was that the demise of the Crown should not vacate offices. There was no reason now for Ministers having to surrender office. It was very extraordinary that the new Amendment was suggested by an hon. Gentleman
  1266
  who had actually given notice of an Instruction. The hon. Member did not like to be reminded of that. He seemed to regard it as a sort of youthful indiscretion. When the hon. Member put down that Instruction his view must have been decidedly opposed to that contained in the new Amendment. He (Sir Robert Finlay) hoped the Committee would take the view that the Amendment was capricious.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLexpressed the hope that the House would not reject the Amendment. The clause as it stood was insidious. It was to shield the Members of the Treasury Bench from facing their constituents. On the 23rd January, Ministers all re-appointed themselves, and he would have something more to say about that by and by. The Attorney General had talked about constitutional principles, but he was the prime violator of the Constitution. The Bill was wholly unnecessary, except to provide immunity to Ministers in their own interest, and yet Ministers dared to talk of constitutionalism! He would uphold through thick and thin that the Attorney General did not know the law.
  MR. MOOREsaid he had listened with much interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds, who had appealed on a purely legal point to the 162 legal Members in the House. That hon. and learned Member insisted on enforcing the old principle that when a Member of Parliament took a new office he was obliged to face his constituents in a new election. He would like to point out that that question had been raised on the creation of the office of Vice-President of the Agricultural and Technical Education Department in Ireland. It went to the Committee upstairs, where the Attorney General expressed to the Committee the view that the holders of offices created during this century should not be exposed to what he might call the risks of re-election. He submitted that the whole tendency of modern legislation from 1867 downwards was that it was not necessary to expose a man who

  1267
  accepted office to face his constituents on that account.
  MR. CALDWELLmaintained that if the law was going to be altered it should apply to every appointment under the Crown. The Bill ought to have been more comprehensive, and he objected to the special application which the Bill would have in, the case of Ministers who held office at the demise of the Crown. There was no comparison between the dignity of Ministers of the Crown and other servants of the Crown. The reason was that Ministers stood in a very different position from other servants of the Crown, especially in relation to the Civil List and other matters. If there was to be an alteration of the law it ought not to be limited to Ministers of the Crown.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the debate was of a very singular character. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to a Member of the House who had been appointed to a new office in spite of the protest of not only the Irish party, but of the whole of the Liberal party in the House. They were, however, over-borne, and Mr. Plunkett was placed at the head of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland. But what was the result? That gentleman had not been able to get a seat in the whole of Ireland, and therefore his case was a singularly unfortunate illustration to be brought forward by the hon. Gentleman. In fact, it confirmed his proposition that when a man became the paid servant of the Government he ought to seek re-election, because it was a constitutional right of a constituency to choose whether they would be represented by an independent, unpaid Member or not. The Attorney General talked of the ancient rule being intended to apply to Ministers when they were personal servants of the Crown; but everyone knew that when a Minister became a salaried servant of the Crown his whole character was altered, and it was the right of his constituents to say whether they preferred to be represented by such a member of the Ministry or not. There could not be a greater proof of the evil of this new and vicious principle, which was gradually being introduced
  1268
  into the practice of the House of Commons for the convenience of hon. Gentlemen who meant to take office, than the case of the right hon. Gentleman who lately represented South Dublin. A man who held office under the Crown owed to the Crown undivided allegiance; but a man who was a Member of the House and also a servant of the Crown had a double allegiance as a representative of the Crown and as a representative of his constituency, and his constituency ought to be allowed to say at the earliest moment whether they preferred him in that capacity. If it were desirable to alter the law as proposed by this Bill, it should not be done for a particular and specific occasion, for the purpose of relieving His Majesty's Ministers from the necessity of facing their constituents. This question ought to be debated and dealt with on its merits, and not on the convenience of His Majesty's Ministers. The hon. Gentleman the Attorney General declared that it was manifestly absurd to keep up the old system; in other words, the constitutional practice of 200 years was to be broken to get Ministers out of a difficulty. That he held was absurd. Those who had been in the House for some time knew that there was considerable public inconvenience when important Ministers had to be absent from the House for some weeks between their appointment and re-election, but that public inconvenience would not have been borne for 200 or 300 years unless an important constitutional principle had been involved.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid that if this Bill meant anything, it meant a Bill of indemnity to the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench who had been re-appointed by the King and had not sought re-election. It was perfectly clear that all offices held under the Crown, determined, by common law, at the demise of the Crown; and the Statute of Queen Anne, to which reference had been made, only permitted officers under the Crown to continue in office until six months after the demise of the Sovereign. The Act of 1867 only provided that when a Minister was changed from one office to another he did not

  1269
  necessarily vacate his seat. That did not meet the case of a Minister being re-appointed to the same office as he had held under the deceased Queen. The hon. Member for North Antrim referred to the case of Mr. Plunkett; but there was a clause in the Act creating the office of Vice-President of the Agricultural and the Technical Educational Department, stating that the appointment of that right hon. Gentleman should not affect his seat. He thought it would be a very great mistake, by a side wind, so to speak, to alter the constitutional law of the country in this matter, a law which had existed for centuries. Otherwise, when Members got into Parliament, and were tempted with the offer of office, they might accept that office, although they had secured their seat on the faith that they were perfectly independent, or held political opinions quite different from those of the Ministry in power.
  MR. TULLYsaid he thought that the Amendment was a very important one. The real question was whether Ministers on appointment should go before their constituencies for re-election. Many in Ireland were anxious that Ministers should be sent to their constituencies. They knew that after the vote of the Attorney General for Ireland in regard to the land purchase question—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is taking rather too great a latitude in discussing the resolution before the Committee.
  MR. TULLYsaid that the Attorney General for Ireland ought to have gone
  before his constituents and obtained their verdict on his appointment. The Amendment introduced the vicious principle of co-option in the House, enabling the Tory party to co-opt their Members to office. He knew that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side would go into the lobby and vote for this Bill for their own convenience. He would support the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in his Amendment, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would go to a division. A most important constitutional question had been raised by the hon. Member.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member of the Standing Order against repetition.
  MR. TULLYsaid he would strive to submit to the ruling of the Chairman; but the hon. Member for North Antrim had been very persistent in interrupting him that night. Mr. Plunkett, when appointed to his present position in the Department of Agriculture, had a special clause in the Act of Parliament creating the office stating that he should not go before his constituents, although he had accepted office. But what was the result? When Mr. Plunkett went to his constituents in the ordinary course at the last General Election he was rejected.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 216; Noes, 121. (Division List No. 178.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Beach, RtHn.SirM.H.(Bristol)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Chapman, Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brassey, Albert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Austin, Sir John

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Butcher, John George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Carlile, William Walter

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Denny, Col.

  Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Rankin, Sir James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawson, John Grant

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Faber, George Denison

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

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

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

  Rutherford, John

  Finch, George H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Gordon, Maj. E.- (T'w'rH'mlets

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

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Smith, H. C. (N'rth'mb Tyneside

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Spear, John Ward

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nd's

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Stewart, Sir M. J. McTaggart

  Gretton, John

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stroyan, John

  Groves, James Grimble

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Ham, Edward

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lrd G. (Midd'x

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Valentia, Viscount

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Helder, Augustus

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts

  Henderson, Alexander

  Parker, Gilbert

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

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

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Howard, John (Kent, F'versh'm

  Percy, Earl

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Pierpoint, Robert

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Wylie, Alexander

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Younger, William

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Keswick, William

  Purvis, Robert

  Sir William Walrond and.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Randles, John S.

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Crean, Eugene

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

  Cremer, William Randal

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cullinan, J.

  Hammond, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Delany, William

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bell, Richard

  Dillon, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Black, Alexander William

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

  Boland, John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Boyle, James

  Duffy, William J.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Brigg, John

  Duncan, J. Hastings

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

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Edwards, Frank

  Holland, William Henry

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Caldwell, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'ns'a

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Colville, John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Joyce, Michael

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gilhooly, James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lambert, George

  1272

  1273

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Doherty, William

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Lowther, Rt.Hn.James (Kent)

  O'Dowd, John

  Strachey, Edward

  Lundon, W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Mara, James

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  M'Arthur William (Cornwall)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  Tully, Jasper

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Mooney, John J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Price, Robert John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Priestley, Arthur

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

  Rea, Russell

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Murphy, J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rigg, Richard

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

  Norman, Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  Roche, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Captain Donelan and Mr.

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

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 108; Noes, 225. (Division List No. 179.)

  AYES.

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

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Malley, William

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

  O'Mara, James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bell, Richard

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Black, Alexander William

  Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Boland, John

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boyle, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Price, Robert John

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Lambert, George

  Rea, Russell

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Colville, John

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Roche, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Strachey, Edward

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Doogan, P. C.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Tully, Jasper

  Duffy, William J.

  Murphy, J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S

  Edwards, Frank

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Norman, Henry

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'y, Mid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Doherty, William

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Mr. Caldwell and Mr.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  O'Dowd, John

  Lloyd Morgan.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Austin, Sir John

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

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christch'ch.

  Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Percy, Earl

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Pierpoint Robert

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Brassey, Albeit

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Helder, Augustus

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Purvis, Robert

  Butcher, John George

  Henderson, Alexander

  Randles, John S.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Rankin, Sir James

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

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

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cavendish, V C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hozier, Hn. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Renwick, George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Rigg, Richard

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Chapman, Edward

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Keswick, William

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rutherford, John

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lawson, John Grant

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, Wm. Edw. T.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, H. C (Northmb Tyneside

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Spear, John Ward

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stroyan, John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Win. H.

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

  Faber, George Denison

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dnmfriessh.

  Tollemache, Henry James

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

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Finch, George H.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Moore, William (Antrim N.)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormshy-

  Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

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

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Gretton, John

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wylie, Alexander

  Groves, James Grimble

  O'Neill, Hon. Rbt. Torrens

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Parker, Gilbert

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Hain, Edward

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Younger, William

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Sir William Walrond and

  Hamilton, Rt Hn. Ld. G (Midd'x

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Mr. Hayes Fisher.

  It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  Adjourned at half-past Twelve of the clock.

EARL OF CLANCARTY.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of William Frederick, Earl of Clancarty, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EARL OF ARRAN.
Petition of Arthur Jocelyn Charles, Earl of Arran, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
The Earl of Cottenham sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PORTMADOC, BEDDGELERT, AND SOUTH SNOWDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  GRAVESEND GAS BILL. BIDEFORD AND CLOVELLY RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported without amendment.
  POULTON-LE-FYLDE GAS BILL [H.L.]
    CHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
      FAVERSHAM WATER BILL [H.L.]
        WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC., BILL [H.L.]
        Reported with Amendments.
  COWES FERRY BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  FINCHLEY AND HENDON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  SOUTHPORT WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  SHREWSBURY GAS BILL [H.L.]
    NEW SWINDON GAS BILL [H.L.]
      MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
      Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  CITY AND NORTH-EAST SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Standing Order No. 92 considered (according to order) and dispensed with, with respect to a petition of the Trustees of the Wesleyan Hall and Mission House, Bishopsgate Street: Leave given to present the said petition.
  DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
    NEWRY PORT AND HARBOUR TRUST BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  RUGBY WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
    LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    The order made on Monday last, appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bills, discharged.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL [H.L.] (No. 69.)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Babbacombe and Great Yarmouth.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.] (No 70.)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act, 1870, relating to Coatbridge Tramways, Folkestone Corporation Tramways, Glossop Electric Tramways, Hopeman Tramway, Weston-super-Mare Tramways, and West Riding Tramways.
  Were presented by the Earl of Hardwicke (for the Earl of Dudley); read 1a;

  1119
  to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No 6) BILL [H.L.]
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.]
      EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL [H.L.]
      Read 2a (according to order.)
  HAMILTON BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
    SCOTTISH PROVIDENT INSTITUTION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    FEE FUND OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
    The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Annual Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords: The same was ordered to lie on the Table, and to be referred to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.
  CHINA, No. 4. (1901).
  Plans referred to in China, No. 3 (1901): Further correspondence respecting events at Peking.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2,591. Brazil (Pernambuco);
  No. 2,592. Spain (Cadiz and district);
  No. 2,593. Belgium (Ghent).

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of evictions in Ireland, for the quarter ended 31st March, 1901.
  MINES AND QUARRIES (GENERAL REPORT AND STATISTICS FOR 1900) (PART 1, DISTRICT STATISTICS).
  Statistics of the persons employed, output, and accidents at mines and quarries in the United Kingdom, arranged according to the inspection districts.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  General Report on schools for the blind and deaf, for the two years ended 31st
  1120
  August, 1900, by T. King, Esq., Senior Chief Inspector; with Appendices.

  SWISS RIFLE RANGES.
  Report by Major the Honourable T. F. Fremantle, 1st Bucks Volunteer Rifle Corps, and Captain E. C. H. Grant, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, on Swiss Rifle Ranges.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION BOARD (IRELAND).
  Annual Report for the Year 1900.
  SAVINGS BANK (TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS).
  Savings Banks (Investment) Regulations, 1901, dated 4th April, 1901.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury warrant, dated 1st May, 1901, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of assistant auditors on the staff of the Local Government Board, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired on the public service are required.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Report of the proceedings of the Board of Trade up to the 31st December, 1900; and of the proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statute made by the Governing Body of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, on 22nd December, 1900, amending sections 6 and 10 of Statute X. and Statute XXIV. of the statutes of the College.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 68.)

  ARUNDEL PORT.
  Account and Report for 1900–1901; delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL. [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which proposes to apply to Ireland some useful provisions of the law of this country, which have been in operation in England for some years. The first proposal of the Bill is that the Lord Lieutenant may, in addition to his power of absolute discharge, also discharge any criminal lunatic conditionally—that is to say, on such conditions as to the duration of such discharge and otherwise as the Lord Lieutenant may think fit. In Ireland we have felt the want of this power, which has been in operation in England for many years with great advantage. In Ireland criminal lunatics confined during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant can only be released absolutely without any condition whatever, and that sometimes leads to difficulties owing to the risk and danger involved. The second clause proposes to extend to Ireland certain sections relating to the ill treatment or abuse of lunatics which have already been substantially passed into law in England. Then there are certain sections, already in operation in England, making provision as to expenses of criminal and dangerous lunatics. In Ireland at the present time—this used to be the law in England, but it has been amended—the sole jurisdiction with respect to lunatics is vested in the Lord Chancellor; and the fourth clause of this Bill enables the Sovereign, as in England, to give authority to the Judges of the Supreme Court, such as the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice, to deal with questions respecting lunatics. These, I think, are the only clauses I need refer to, and I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  *LORD WINDSOR: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I have a question to ask my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland. In Committee a clause was introduced, at the instance of
  1122
  the Secretary for Scotland, excluding Scotland from the operation of the Bill. I reluctantly assented to that. I say reluctantly, because I had received communications from library authorities and persons interested in libraries in Scotland strongly supporting the Bill. I understood, however, that the noble Lord did not object to some of the provisions of the Bill, and therefore I would ask him if he would favourably consider whether upon a future occasion a Bill, dealing with Scotland, on somewhat similar lines, can be introduced. Of course, I do not for a moment expect him to pledge himself to anything of a definite nature.
  Moved,—"That the Bill be now read 3a."
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, nothing could have been fairer or more accurate than the account which the noble Lord has given of what passed at the former stage of the Bill. I did carefully consider whether it would be expedient to apply any part of this Bill to Scotland, and I was advised, without hesitation, by those whose business it is to study these questions with more legal skill than I can bring to bear upon them, that to apply this Bill to Scotland would introduce a considerable amount of confusion and doubt as to the Acts of Parliament regulating Scottish public libraries. I think that the majority of those who are interested in libraries in Scotland came also to that conclusion. Certainly more than one of the legal societies in Scotland who have committees to examine Bills of this kind were of opinion that the disadvantages of applying any part of the Bill to Scotland would be greater than the advantages. I do not deny that one or two of the clauses are an advance upon anything we have in Scotland at the present time, and might usefully be applied to Scottish libraries. But the whole of the Acts relating to public libraries in Scotland are in rather a state of confusion, and it would be well worth while to codify and in some respects simplify the law. Under these circumstances I have to express my acknowledgments and thanks to the noble Lord for agreeing with the proposal which I made, and to assure him that I will most carefully consider the desirability of amending the aw in Scotland with regard to

  1123
  public libraries in the direction of certain of the clauses of this Bill. I cannot, of course, undertake to introduce a Bill in the present session, but I will keep it before me as an object to be attained at as early a date as possible.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly.
  Amendments (privileged) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
  LORD BARNARD: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is intended that the Joint Select Committee of this House and the House of Commons to consider the constitution of Queen Anne's Bounty should be re-appointed this session as recommended by the Report of the Select Committee, dated 16th July, 1900. Even if the Government cannot answer the question in the affirmative I hope they will be able to give us some assurance that the subject is not being forgotten and will not be indefinitely postponed. The Committee only held one sitting last session to deal with what was acknowledged to be a question of urgent importance, and I have since ascertained that the recommendation of the Committee has not yet been complied with. There is a great deal of interest taken by the clergy and others connected with the Church in this matter, and, if the Committee is not reappointed this session, I hope some steps will be taken at an early date to satisfy the desires of those who have this matter at heart.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I do not see anyone on this Bench who is in a position to give a direct answer to the question. Perhaps, therefore, my noble friend will put it on the Paper for Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five of the clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.