Sitting of 6 August 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  FLEETWOOD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,
    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Lords Amendments, in pursuance of the Order of the House [29th July], considered, and agreed to.

    LONDON WATER PURCHASE BILL.
    Order [12th February] that the Bill be read a second time read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.—(Mr. Caldwell)

  PETITIONS,
    ARMY (USE OF "CRIMSON CROSS" REMEDIES).
    Petition from Derby, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
    EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
    Petitions against: From Stanningley; South Shields (five); and Ramsbottom; to lie upon the Table.
    EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES BILL.
    Petition from South fleet, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
    LICENSING BILL.
    Petition from Manchester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    VACCINATION BILL.
    Petition from Derby, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.
    Copy presented, of Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent on the Strikes and Lock-outs of 1901, and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
    Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other foreign countries in each year from 1890 to 1899–1900 (Twenty-eighth number) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    RAILWAYS (GENERAL REPORT).
    Copy presented, of General Report to the Board of Trade on the Capital, Traffic, and Expenditure of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    STATISICAL ABSTRACT (UNITED KINGDOM).
    Copy presented, of Statisical Abstract for the United Kingdom in each of the last fifteen years from 1887 to 1901, Forty-ninth Number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    COAL TABLES, 1901.
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th August; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 328.]
    MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1901.
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th August; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 329.]
    GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st May; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 330.]
    GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st May; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 331.
    WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (SCHEMES).
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 23rd July; Mr. Kenyon]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 332.]

    NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
    Copy presented, of Report of the Director of the National Gallery of Ireland to the Board of Governors and

    771
    Guardians for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE).
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th August; Mr. Austen Chamberlain]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 333.]
    IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1891).
    Copy presented, of Return of Advances under the Act during the year ended 31st March, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 334.]
    ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
    Copy presented, of Statement of the Amounts due by the public to Depositors on 31st March, 1900, and of the Receipts, Interest and Disbursements during the year ended 31st March, 1901, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 335.]
    PRISONS (IRELAND).
    Copy presented, of Twenty-fourth Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland) for 1901–2, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    COMMISSION OF THE PEACE (IRE LAND).
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th March; Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 336].
    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (DISTRIBU TION OF GRANTS).
    Copy presented, of Annual Report on the distribution of Grants for Agricultural Education and Research in the year 1901–2 by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    ORDNANCE SURVEY.
    Copy presented, of Report of the progress of the Ordnance Survey to the 31st March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    RAILWAY AND HARBOUR GUARAN TEES (IRELAND).
    Return ordered, "showing by Baronies and by smaller areas where only a smaller area is charged—(1) Name of railway or harbour; (2) Area of charge; (3) Valuation of area of charge; (4) Population of
    772
    Barony; (5) Amount contributed in the last year in respect of each guarantee; (6) Amount receivable from the Government in recoupment under the Tram and Public Companies Act, 1883; (7) Amount receivable under Section 58 (4) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898; (8) Net charge against each guaranteeing area; (9) Poundage rate required to pay the net charge for all such guarantees; (10) Poundage rate required to pay ordinary charges for the same year—(a) off agricultural land; (b)off other Hereditaments."—(Mr. Thomas O'Donnell).

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Prison Officers' Pay and Pension.
    MR. JOHN HUTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to do anything to improve the position of prison officers with regard to their rate of pay or terms of service for pension; whether there is any difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of suitable warders; and how many prison officers have retired with a three-quarter pension after forty years service.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Ritchie). I am not in a position to announce any decision in this difficult matter, but it is not being lost sight of. It cannot be said that there is a serious difficulty in obtaining suitable candidates for the post of prison warder. Since the 1st April, 1878, when the local prisons were taken over by the Government, the number of officers (including both local and convict prison officers) who have retired with the full pension (two-thirds) after forty years service, is twenty-eight.

    Scottish Fisheries—Scientific Researches in the Moray Firth
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state for how long a period the trawler "Loch Ryan" was engaged in making experimental scientific researches in the Moray Firth under the direction of the Scottish Fishery Board; is she still employed by the Board; and, if not, will he say when her services were dispensed with.

    773
    (Answered by Mr. Graham Murray). I am informed by the Fishery Board that the steam trawler "Loch Ryan" was engaged by the Fishery Board in making scientific researches in the Moray Firth from the 5th to the 11th November last, both dates inclusive, and has not since the latter date been so employed.

    Post Office Savings Bank—Telegraphic Withdrawals.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ending 31st December, 1901, and the average cost to the depositor of each withdrawal; and will he also state the number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day, and the average cost to the depositor of each such notice.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain). The number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank during the year ended 31st December, 1901, was 192,308; and the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal was about Is. 3d. The number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day was 13,108: and the average cost to the depositor of each such telegraph notice was about 9d.

    Auxiliary Postmen, Ireland—Retired Soldiers.
    MR. SULLIVAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that retired soldiers of good character are allowed certain privileges in the matter of appointments in the service of the General Post Office, and that such men are acting as auxiliary postmen in Ireland without any prospect of being placed on the established list, owing to their age; and, seeing that certain officers in the service of the General Post Office are allowed up to the age of 54 years to qualify for position, will the Postmaster General consider, with a view to granting them pensions, the case of retired soldiers now acting as auxiliary postmen, who have no Army pension, but have served twelve years and upwards in His Majesty's Army, and who, on retirement, and whilst yet under the prescribed
    774
    36 years of age limit, signified their intention of joining the service of the General Post Office.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain). Auxiliary postmen, whether ex-soldiers or civilians, are not entitled to pension on retirement, as they are not required to give their whole time to the public service.

    Customs Assistant Clerks
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, in consideration of the responsibility attaching to the duties performed by those assistant clerks in the customs who are in receipt of the checking allowances for supervising the work of other assistant clerks, he will grant an addition to their annual leave in accordance with the practice which formerly obtained in the Customs Department in the case of lower division clerks in receipt of duty pay.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain). The two cases are not analogous, and I can make no exception to the decision already communicated to the hon. Member on the 23rd and 30th ultimo.

    Birmingham Post Office Staff—Meal Intervals
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the postal and telegraph employees attached to the Birmingham Post Office protesting against the withdrawal of intervals for meals on certain divided attendances; and whether, in view of the recommendation of the Medical Department of the General Post Office that over fatigue and long fasting should be carefully guarded against, he will modify the regulations so as to prevent the employees being compelled to take two meals between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m., or else undergo a fast for a period exceeding six hours daily, with the liability to be retained on duty one hour further before being permitted to partake of refreshment.

    775
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain). The Postmaster General has seen the resolution in question. He understands that it refers to a desire of the staff that intervals for meals should be allowed in the case of attendances not exceeding four hours in duration, such as from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., followed by one from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. In the case of duties arranged in this manner it does not appear to the Postmaster General that any interval for meals is required. If, however, the attendance is prolonged to four and a half hours or upwards, an interval of fifteen or twenty minutes is given.

    Central Telegraphic Office — Inefficient Operators—Compensation for Tele graphic Errors.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the issue of a recent circular by the telegraph authorities admitting the inefficiency of the operators in the Central Office, London, who are attached to the Metropolitan Gallery, the Postmaster General will take steps to award compensation to the senders of telegrams who suffer pecuniary loss as a result of errors and delays caused through the incompetency of the male and female clerks in this gallery.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Post Office representatives before the Tweedmouth Committee stated that telegraphists could be trained in three months, and have else where stated that telegraphy needs no more skill than tpyewriting; and whether, in view of these facts, the Postmaster General will explain why it is necessary to issue a circular stating that some years must elapse before the male and female staff of the Metropolitan Gallery will be efficient.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain). Perhaps it will be convenient to answer the two Questions of the hon. Member together. In the circular to which he calls attention there was no admission of inefficiency, but a reminder of a fact which has had to be brought to the
    776
    notice of the staff from the earliest days of telegraphy, namely, that telegraphists are not all able to send and receive telegrams at the same rate; and that therefore discretion must be exercised with a view to harmonious working between the two ends of a wire; the Postmaster General is not aware of any statements made before the Tweedmouth Committee, or elsewhere, which conflict with this view. As to compensation, it is notified on the telegram forms that the Postmaster General is not liable for loss or damage arising out of mistakes or default in the transmission of telegrams.

    Madras Revenue Board.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the expediency of abolishing the Revenue Board in the Madras Presidency and appointing in its place Revenue Commissioners who would be required, like the Commissioners in the Bombay Presidency, to visit each collectorate in their charge, and ascertain locally how the administration is being carried on.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton). The Madras Revenue Board was reorganised in 1886 with the object of securing individual initiative and responsibility and of enabling the members to make frequent tours of inspection in the district. Four Commissioners in charge of separate Departments, who meet together as a Board only on special occasions, were then substituted for the old collective Board. I do not propose to revise these arrangements, which work satisfactorily.

    Madras Land Revenue—Default Sales —Soil Classification.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state why the system of classification of soils now in force in Madras was abandoned in the Bombay Presidency in favour of the present system; and, in view of the fact that for the four years ending 30th June, 1900, no less than 160,640 acres of land, the property of evicted ryots, have been put up for auction by Government in the Madras Presidency in default of payment of land revenue, will he consider the advisability of some change in the Madras system.

    777
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton). It cannot be said that the present system of soil classification in Madras was ever in force in Bombay, for it was not formulated before 1850, whereas the present Bombay system was devised about 1835. The two systems have been independently and gradually evolved with strict reference to historical and local conditions. I have stated in reply to a former Question that I do not propose to change the Madras system, as it is considered to give satisfactory results.

    Indian Land Systems—Advances for Land Improvements
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the entire amount which has been advanced in each Presidency in India under the Lands Improvements Acts and the Agriculturists Loans Act, and how much has been repaid by the agriculturists in each Presidency.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton). The subjoined figures, which are taken from the published accounts of the Government of India, show the sums advanced to and recovered from agriculturists for land improvements and for other purposes in each province during the period 1888–1901. The accounts do not enable me to give similar information for the preceding years.

    Advanced.

    Recovered.

    —

    —

    Rs.

    Rs.

    Madras

    96,63,620

    59,81,740

    Bombay

    2,60,30,900

    88,91,960

    Bengal

    49,69,930

    45,53,730

    United Provinces of Agra and Oudh

    1,10,03,760

    1,04,22,340

    Punjab

    96,16,130

    69,52,420

    Central Provinces

    1,28,25,020

    75,39,040

    Burma

    16,57,260

    16,97,300

    Mydrim (Carmarthenshire) School.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that no Government grant is promised or will be paid in respect of the school at Mydrim, Carmarthenshire; that the school is only kept open by the teachers on their own responsibility; and that the trustees have the power to close the school whenever they please; and whether, taking into consideration the considerable distance
    778
    between Mydrim and Bankyfelin and the fact that the Education Bill does not come into force until the 29th day of March, 1903, he will reconsider the question of providing during the winter months school accommodation for Mydrim.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton). The possible deficiency of school accommodation in Mydrim shall be carefully watched.

    Abortive Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1898.
    MR. PIEKPOINT: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the Convention between England and the Porte concerning the conversion of the 4 per cent. Turkish (Guaranteed) Loan of 1855, which was signed in London on or about 3rd August, 1898, by the Marquess of Salisbury and Costaki Pasha; whether the Sultan has refused to ratify the Convention; and whether he will lay Papers upon the Table.
    (Answered by Lord Cranborne). As my hon. friend is aware, the negotiations on this subject were suspended in 1898 and have not been resumed. I am afraid I am unable to make any further statement.

    Irish School Buildings
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will suggest to the Board of Works the desirability of increasing the maximum now allowed for the carrying out of their plans in the building of school houses with a view to meeting the increased cost of labour and materials.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will urge upon the Board of Works the necessity of increasing their contribution for the building of school houses, as owing to the increased cost of labour and materials it is impossible to get contractors to work the plans and specifications for the amount fixed by the Board.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham). The question of a revision of the scale on which grants are now made towards the

    779
    building of schools is at present the subject of correspondence between the Irish Government and the Treasury.

    Irish Criminals—Philip Barry.
    MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds Philip Barry, who was sentenced to twenty years penal servitude for manslaughter at the Cork Winter Assizes in 1894, was recently released.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham). The sentence of twenty years penal servitude was mitigated to one of ten years by the Lord Lieutenant in April, 1900. The prisoner was released on licence on the 27th May, 1902, having completed nearly seven and a half years of the latter sentence and earned, under the regulations, a remission of the remaining portion of the sentence.

    Irish National Schools—Teachers' Salaries.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists among teachers and managers in Irish national schools with regard to the fixing of salaries under the new system; and whether he will appoint a Committee of inspectors to inquire during the autumn into the teachers' complaints.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham). Some of the teachers, I believe, complained that their salaries had not been fixed on an equitable basis. In all such cases full inquiry was made by the Commissioners, and the salaries were revised whenever it was deemed fair and right to do so. It does not appear to me that there are any sufficient reasons for further inquiry as suggested.

    Killarney County Council Election.
    MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Earl of Kenmare, his agent, and other persons have prevented certain car owners and others suspected of having voted against Mr. Leonard at the recent County Council election from entering certain places of interest in Killarney that have always been open to the public; and whether he will say whether
    780
    he proposes to take any steps to prevent injury being inflicted on those persons for having voted as they were legally entitled to do.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that four car drivers, who are not voters, as alleged, were refused admission to the demesne lands of Lord Kenmare for a few days, together with a number of other persons. This appears to have been done in the exercise of the private right of the owner, and is not a matter that concerns the Executive Government.

    Dunfanaghy or Creeslough Dispensary District.
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board has received a memorial praying for a re-arrangement of the Dunfanaghy Dispensary District and the creation of a new district, to be called the Creeslough Dispensary District; and whether a local inquiry will be held as desired.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.)The memorial has been received. The question of holding a local inquiry is under consideration.

    Income Tax Repayments—Delays at Dublin.
    MR. Cullinan: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that complaints have been received by the surveyor of income tax claims, Custom House, Dublin, with reference to delay in refunding income tax; and whether steps will be taken to expedite the refunding of claims admitted to be correct.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)The Comptroller of Inland Revenue at Dublin has doubtless received complaints as to delay in dealing with claims for repayment of income tax, but these are unavoidable so long as it is necessary for persons to prove their title to repayment of income tax. These complaints are for the most part due to delay arising from incomplete information afforded in the first instance by claimants themselves. Every effort is made and will

    781
    continue to be made by the officials at Dublin to expedite the settlement of these claims.

    Army Officers' Resignations and Retirements.
    MR. LODER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of resignations and retirements of officers which are now under the consideration of the War Office.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.)The resignations and retirements of thirty-six officers are under consideration.

    Army Officers Education and Training Committee's Report.
    MR. BECKETT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to take any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on the education and training of officers of the Army, especially in regard to the changes they desire to see made in the entrance examination; and whether he can see his way to recommend the immediate adoption of the syllabus of subjects proposed for the antecedent education of Army candidates.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The recommendations of this Committee are of great importance and are being carefully considered; but the pressure of work in regard to demobilisation has been very great, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    Hilsea Bridge (Portsmouth).
    MR. SCOTT MONTAGU: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has had under consideration the offer made by the Hants County Council with reference to the strengthening of the Hilsea Bridge, near Portsmouth, which was communicated to the War Office on 23rd April last, and to which no answer has yet been received.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The matter is still under consideration. I regret that inter-Departmental communication has caused undue delay.

    South Africa—Native Labour on the Rand.
    MR. DILLON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
    782
    whether he can state what was the rate of pay for native labour on the Rand in 1899 before the war, and what is the present rate.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) I understand that the rate of pay has been considerably reduced, but I have no official information of the figures.

    British Indian Subjects in the New Colonies.
    SIR MANGHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has instructed the administrations of the Transvaal and Orange State Colonies to modify the old Boer laws and regulations which imposed disabilities upon British Indian subjects resident there; and whether he is taking advantage of the presence in England of the Premiers and other representatives from the Colonies to impress on them the desirability of removing the various restrictions and penalties to which British Indian subjects are exposed within some of those Colonies; and whether he can give any information as to the result of any action taken by him to secure that object.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) (1) I am in communication with Lord Milner in regard to the position of British Indians in the new Colonies and the regulations affecting them. (2.) The matter is not one included for discussion at the Conference of Premiers. (3.) I am not able to make any statement at present.

    China—Foreign Garrisons at Shanghai.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British, French, and Japanese consular representatives at Shanghai are prepared to agree to the demand of Lin Kun-Yi, Viceroy of Nanking, that the foreign garrisons now occupying Shanghai be withdrawn; and, if so, whether the British Government will use its efforts to arrange with those Powers whose troops are garrisoning Shanghai for a simultaneous evacuation of that port.

    783
    (Answered by Lord Cranborne.)His Majesty's Government are not aware of the views held by the consular representatives at Shanghai in regard to the request of the Chinese Government. We have, however, informed the French, German, and Japanese Governments of our willingness to withdraw our troops provided that those Powers take a similar course.

  (2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South Africa—Martial Law Commission.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Commission appointed to inquire into the sentences passed by courts martial in South Africa will take evidence and hear witnesses on oath; whether their Report and the evidence taken will be laid before the Imperial Parliament and also before the Cape Parliament; whether it is intended that the Report should furnish a basis of legislation either in the Imperial Parliament or the Cape Parliament.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The main work, as I understand, of the Commission will be to examine evidence already taken at various trials, but they will be able to supplement it where they think it necessary by examining witnesses, but not on oath. I can give no statement, one way or the other, at present as to whether the Report will be laid either before the Cape Parliament or this Parliament. The answer to the last Question is in the negative.
    MR. SWIFTMACNEILL: Will the proceedings be open to the public?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the evidence is not to be taken on oath?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That would require statutory powers, I gather.

    Sir John Ardagh.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury,
    784
    having regard to the fact that Sir John Ardagh has been since 1896 the director of military intelligence, and that his evidence may be required by the Royal Commission to inquire into the war, will he consider the desirability of appointing him a Royal Commissioner for the revision of sentences by court martial in South Africa, a post which will entail his absence from England.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that Sir John Ardagh's work on the Commission is likely to make it impossible or even difficult to obtain any evidence from him that may be required for the more extended inquiry into the South African War.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the Commission be permitted to get Sir John Ardagh's Report as to the condition of things before the war?
    [No reply was given.]

    Rough Play by Officers in Cape Town.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on. Christmas Eve last, ten officers held a fictitious court martial in a room in the Mount Nelson Hotel, Cape Town, on a civilian, Mr. Hardwicke Stanford, whom they maltreated, and subsequently made him sign a paper to say the whole thing was done in fun; whether he is aware that these proceedings were carried on whilst the base commandant and a colonel of the 3rd Grenadier Guards were staying in Mount Nelson Hotel, and that neither of these officers made any attempt to stop this conduct, while the former, in reporting the matter to Lord Kitchener, stated the whole proceedings were carried on in fun; whether he is aware that Mr. Stanford brought an action in the Supreme Court in Cape Colony, laying the damages at £3,000, against eight of the ten officers who had maltreated him, and that the case was settled in court by the defendants, who tendered him an apology, and submitted to a verdict for £1,500 damages and,£1,200 costs; and will he say whether these officers, or any of them, have been tried by court martial, or has any court of inquiry been held

    785
    to investigate their conduct; and, if so, will he say what further steps will be taken.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have no information whatever in regard to the matters mentioned in the Question. No doubt, if there had been occasion for it, Lord Kitchener would have dealt with the matter.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Lord Kitchener is in this country: will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to him this Question?
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir; I have perfect confidence in Lord Kitchener, and am sure that, if necessary, he has dealt with the matter.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will give the House some further information this afternoon.

    Remounts—The Studdert Case.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the law officers of the Crown have yet completed their inquiries as to the possibility of a prosecution in the Irish remounts case.
    MR. BRODRICK: It has been decided that a prosecution will be instituted against all persons concerned whom there is evidence sufficient to implicate in the transactions which formed the subject matter of the recent action by the Secretary of State for War against Studdert and others.

    Ordnance Factory Waste.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, showing that a waste of material worth £10.000 a year has been going on for years, and was only stopped by the intelligent observation of a policeman: whether that policeman has been rewarded; and whether any action has been taken in regard to the officials responsible for this waste.
    MR. BRODR1CK: The whole matter is under investigation. The policeman was duly rewarded.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: How was he rewarded?
    MR. BRODRICK: With the sum of £20.

    India and the Imperial Institute.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for India what was the total amount subscribed by the princes and merchants of India to the Imperial Institute; what is the annual interest on those sums; what are the annual sums that have been paid out of Indian taxation towards its maintenance: whether the donors of these sums and the Government of India were consulted before the purposes for which the Imperial Institute was built were changed; and whether the sums subscribed by Indian donors and paid by the Indian Government will now be refunded with arrears of interest.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Indian subscriptions to the general fund for building and endowing the Imperial Institute amounted to £114,528. They were not earmarked for separate use, but were paid into the general fund, aggregating £426,000, from which the Institute was built and endowed; and it is not possible now to say what portion of the endowment of £140,000 represents Indian subscriptions. The total of the annual grants for its maintenance from Indian revenues over a period of eleven years amounted to £16,911 up to 31st March, 1902. As the Act for the transfer of the Institute to the Board of Trade fully provides for the carrying on of the work which these subscriptions and grants were intended to promote, there was no reason for consulting the subscribers or the Government of India, or for refunding the subscriptions. The Government of India has, however, been kept informed as to the progress of the transfer.

    Disturbances in Macedonia.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office is in possession of any recent information as to the condition of things in the neighbourhood of Uskub; whether he has any official information as to the state of affairs in the villayet of Kossovo

    787
    and the conduct of the Turkish troops; and will he state whether the Government intend to take any steps under the obligations of the Treaty of Berlin.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAN-BORNE,): The information in the possession of His Majesty's Government shows that there are large bands of insurgents in the villayet of Kossovo to the North of Uskub. No official news has been received as to their movements during the last month nor any particulars as to the conduct of the Turkish troops with whom the bands have been occasionally in collision. No steps of the kind indicated in the hon. Gentleman's Question are in contemplation.

    Egyptian Tribute to Turkey.
    MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether the Khedive of Eygpt still pays annual tribute to the Sultan of Turkey by way of acknowledging the Sultan's sovereignty over Eygpt; and, If so, what is the amount of tribute so paid; whether any attempt has been made or is being made to release Egypt from her position as a suzerain State, and to constitute her a sovereign power.
    LORD CRANBORNE: The tribute annually payable by the Khedive of Egypt to the Sultan is almost entirely pledged as security for the interest on various Ottoman loans. In the last Egyptian budget the total sum payable is given as 665,041 pounds, Egyptian, of which £64,826 is paid as interest on loans. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

    The Coronation — Telegraphic Announcements.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a Question of which I have sent private notice to the Postmaster General, viz., whether he will meet the earnest wishes of the people by telegraphing to all Post Offices of the United Kingdom on Saturday afternoon the news of the completion of the ceremony of the Coronation of the King.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Facilities are to be given to the newspapers and the news associations to send telegrams from within the Abbey itself, and it is understood that special arrangements are being made throughout the country for publication of news of the ceremony as it proceeds. Where so much is to be done by private enterprise, the Postmaster General does not think it necessary for him to interfere.

    Office of Works Expenditure.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will explain the increase in the item for travelling expenses in the Vote for the Office of Works from £2,800 to.£.3,450; will he say how much of this money is to be expended for travelling in foreign countries; and will he arrange for the expenditure in each country to be given in future Estimates.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The increase is duo to several causes. (1) the greater amount of travelling by the officers in the Far East, in the supervision and inspection of the works and buildings —now very numerous—in China, Japan, and Siam; (2) the removal expenses of certain of the Home staff of surveyors from one district to another, in connection with re-arrangements; (3) additional visits of inspection to various Embassy buildings on the continent. All these increases are in the interest of efficient administration. Of the total, £3,450, travelling in foreign countries will absorb approximately £930. It would not be practicable to give the estimate for each foreign country, visits to several countries being often included in one journey for the sake of economy and convenience.

    Highland Parochial Medical Officers.
    MR. WEIR: I bog to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the cause of the delay in issuing the Return relative to Parochial Medical Officers in the Highland Crofting Counties which was granted in May last; and can he say when the Return will be in the hands of Members.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Return was laid before the House yesterday.

    Ireland's Contribution to the Corn Duties.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been derived from the tax on corn and flour in Ireland since the passage of his Budget Resolutions; and, seeing that the war is now over, he proposes to make any modifications in this tax.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The duty collected on corn and flour at the ports in Ireland from 15th April to 31st July, 1902, amounted to £71,230. The answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.

    Father O'Sullivan and the Cullen Homicide.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he has seen a communication from the Rev. C. O'Sullivan, parish priest of Millstreet, in reference to the Cullen (County Cork) homicide; whether he is aware that, although the Solicitor General, in the course of the trial, indicated that Father O'Sullivan had denounced the existence of a secret society in Cullen, Mr. O'Sullivan has denied his statement, and no evidence as to a secret society was brought forward at the petty sessions' investigation; and will he order further inquiry to be made into the conduct of the case.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): A witness was produced for the defence who admitted that he and six others, including the prisoner, were present when the murdered man was shot. That he and three others immediately ran away leaving the dying man in the street without succour or assistance, where he was afterwards found by the police. He also admitted that he told the police a tissue of falsehood. He also admitted that he told the police a tissue of falsehood deliberately. He was then asked did a secret society exist in Cullen and was he a member of it. He answered both questions in the negative. Ho was then asked had the Rev. Mr. O'Sullivan in his presence denounced this secret society.
    790
    The question was objected to and the objection allowed. The Rev. Mr. O'Sullivan has written to the papers to say that he did not denounce any such secret society. There is nothing to inquire about.
    MR. FLYNN: The Question is—Did Father O'Sullivan make any such statement or not? I have sent the right hon. Gentleman a copy of Father O'Sullivan's letter. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me a fuller answer?
    MR. ATKINSON: I have said that Mr. O'Sullivan wrote to the papers denying that he denounced any secret society.
    MR. FLYNN: Were not fifty-two jurors ordered to stand aside in this case?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Audit of Irish Lunatic Asylums Accounts.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will direct an inquiry to be made by the Local Government Board into the system of auditing the accounts of district lunatic asylums, with a view to ensuring the prevention of fraudulent mismanagement of these funds on the part of officials.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Clause 18 of the Local Government (No. 2.) Bill, which I withdrew in order to make progress in Committee, would enable the Board to secure a more efficient audit of the accounts of these Asylums than is practicable under the existing system of audit. It is for consideration whether some amended version of that Clause is not desirable in order to secure efficiency.

    Irish Education Board.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he intends to fill the vacancy on the Irish Education Board created by the resignation of His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin; and, if so, when; and whether he intends to take any steps to make this Board more representative and efficient.
    MR. WYNPHAM: In respect to the first part of the Question, I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question on the same subject. With regard to the second part of the Question, I believe the Board to be as representative of both religious and educational interests as it can be in view of its statutory constitution. It would not be possible to alter its constitution, except as part of some large educational reform for which the time is not ripe.

    Mr. W. J. O'Hara
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. W. J. O'Hara, until recently a district inspector stationed in the County Wicklow, has been appointed a resident magistrate for the County Fermanagh; whether, about a month ago, Mr. O'Hara was promoted to a county inspectorship in Armagh and will he say for how long he discharged his duty as county inspector in Armagh.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. O'Hara was placed in charge of Armagh as acting county inspector on 9th June, and on 7th July was appointed a resident magistrate.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is this man a brother of the bishop who libelled his Catholic fellow countrymen?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman he is.

    North Sligo Seaboard—Harbour Accommodation.
    MR. WILLIAM M'KILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is need for harbour accommodation for fishermen on the seaboard of North Sligo in the congested areas of Magherow and Tireragh; and will he take steps to secure that the claims of those districts will be considered in any scheme for marine Works in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The claims of all districts scheduled as congested will be duly considered.

    Midleton (Cork) Band.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say why the members of the Midleton (County Cork) band were prevented by the police from playing in front of the residence of the Chairman of the Water-ford County Council on the occasion of their recent visit to Tallow; why the police followed the band during their stay in Tallow, and threatened them with violence if they played through the town; and will he state the reasons for such proceedings.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The place at which the band proposed to play was opposite the business premises of a trader who has been and is still the subject of boycotting. The object the police had in view in preventing the band from playing at this particular point was to avoid a hostile demonstration and to prevent intimidation. The band was not prevented from playing elsewhere in the town, and there is no foundation for the statement that the members of the band were threatened with violence by the police if they played through the town.

    French Park Athletic Sports.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the afternoon of Sunday, 20th July, after the holding of athletic sports in French Park, County Roscommon, a body of policemen drew their batons against the people; whether he is aware that a Pressman who was present in the discharge of his duty was assaulted by a policeman, and that the sergeant declined to give the name of the constable who assaulted him, at the same time asking the Pressman to say no more about it; and will he cause an independent inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police on the occasion.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This was a purely social and sporting gathering. Several policemen competed in the event with other athletes. A very large number of people were present, including Lord and Lady De Freyne, who were received with a cordiality which marked all the proceedings at the sports. A disturbance

    793
    occurred in the village after the conclusion of the sports, and the police were drawn across the road in order to keep back the crowd. A newspaper reporter attempted to force a passage through the police and was pushed back by a constable. The sergeant declined to give the name of the latter, who used no more force than was necessary. Batons were drawn, but not used. I see no ground for further inquiry into the action of the police, which was similar to that necessarily taken by the police in this country at any racemeeting or large concourse of people.
    MR. CULLLNAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that portion of the Question which refers to the Pressman who was assaulted by the police, and who was asked by the sergeant to say no more about it?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That does not represent the facts. I understand that the reporter subsequently expressed his regret to the sergeant for the manner in which, in the heat of the moment, he had addressed him.
    MR. DILLON: If the police used no more force than was necessary, why refuse to disclose the constable's name and have the matter tried in a court of justice?
    MR. WYNDHAM: If the reporter, after having expressed regret, wishes for the name of the constable, he has only to ask for it.
    MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information from the sergeant?

    The Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether any appointment has been made to the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information to give.

    Education Bill—Voluntary School Trust Deeds.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can lay on
    794
    the Table specimen copies of the various kinds of trust deed which will be affected by the provisions of his proposed new clause in the Education Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The trust deeds referred to are not public documents, and I do not think it would be proper to make them the subject of a Parliamentary Return. Their variety, moreover, is so great as to make it impossible to ensure that the specimens selected would be of an adequately representative character.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Would there be any difficulty in obtaining the model trust deed of the National Society?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should imagine that the society would be very glad to furnish the hon. Gentleman with a copy.

    Salmon Fisheries —Commission Report.
    MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Royal Commission on the Salmon Fisheries of England and Scotland will publish their Report.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Report has been presented, and the printers have promised to distribute it today.

    Re-construction of the Cabinet.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he will he able, before the adjournment of the House for the holidays, to communicate to the House the names of the members of the reconstructed Ministry, and to give an assurance that the new Ministers will not be directors of public companies or members of the Stock Exchange.
    [No answer was returned.]

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    David James Shackleton, esquire, for the County of Lancaster, North East (Clitheroe Division).

    JOURNALS.
    Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table General Index to the Journals of the

    795
    House of Commons, commencing with Vol. 146 (1890–91), and ending with Vol. 155 (1900).
    Ordered, That the said General Index be printed.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
    Power given to the Select Committee to report their observations.
    First Report brought up, and read.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 337.]

  NEW BILL.
    MAIL SHIPS BILL.
    "To amend the Mail Ships Act, 1891," presented by Mr. Attorney General, under Standing Order No. 31; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 293.]

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) BILL.
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I have to make a short statement to the House in regard to some alterations in the Clauses. It is only right that I should call attention to the alteration at this stage, though as matter for discussion it more properly belongs to the stage of Committee. The form of the Appropriation Bill is well known, and is, I may say, stereotyped, and I do not think it right to make any alteration without giving full opportunity for consideration and for any objection to be raised. The Appropriation Act at the end of every session gives power to the Treasury to borrow temporarily on Ways and Means on the security of the I.O.U. of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, and gives power to the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland to lend sums required for temporarily financing the Exchequer during the course of the year pending the ingathering of taxes. Of course there is a proviso that any
    796
    sums so borrowed shall be paid off within a certain limited time, and they must be paid off before the close of the quarter succeeding that in which they have been borrowed. In the last two years we had in the third quarter to borrow very largely in this way because, as the House will remember, the expenditure in the first three quarters was very large, while the great ingathering of the income tax does not commence until the fourth quarter of the year. The result was inconvenience in the money market and to the Bank of England, because, as we have no marketable security to offer, we cannot go to the open market for these borrowings. It would be a great public advantage if an alteration could be made in the law which would, I think, facilitate matters by enabling the Treasury to alter the method of borrowing, with, of course, proper provision to secure the repayment of money borrowed within the financial year. This year also we have to meet expenditure which, up to this time, has been almost as large as that of 1901–2, on account of the carrying on and termination of the war. Towards the end of next quarter, no doubt, there will be large deficiencies in the Exchequer; they may even be as large as £15,000,000. Well, it is easy for the House to see that such an amount of borrowing on no better security than the I.O.U. of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might largely unsettle the money market, because the money could only be obtained in certain quarters. Now what I ask the House is, not that the powers of borrowing should be extended in any way, for they are amply sufficient, but that the House should sanction another method of borrowing beside that of the I.O.U. of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Ways and Means. I ask that we should be allowed to borrow on Treasury bills—of course with the fullest safeguard that they shall be paid off before the close of the financial year and not be renewable. For this purpose, if Members will look at copies of the Bill, which are now obtainable, they will see that in the third Clause, beside the usual provision that the Treasury may borrow any sum or sums not exceeding the amount of supplies granted, and the further provision that any such sums shall be paid off in a

    797
    certain time, I propose to insert certain words providing that the Treasury may borrow by the issue of Treasury bills, and a sub-section is added providing that the payment of any bills issued under the section shall date not later than 31st March, 1903, so that they must be paid off within the year. There is a further provision that they shall not be renewed. I hope the House will agree to these Clauses. I may, perhaps, add that in order to give full notice to right hon. gentlemen opposite, I thought it right to communicate privately on the matter with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, and I am authorised to say that I have his assent to this proposal.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road a second time.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid this was really a matter for discussion in Committee, and, without raising any objection or giving any definite opinion at this stage, he desired to further consider the matter. As he understood it, the proposal was to extend the basis for borrowing, enabling the Chancellor of the Exchequer to borrow at a cheaper rate. If that were so he had no objection to it, but, still, he would like to reserve his opinion until the Committee stage.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I may be allowed to explain; it does not enable me to borrow a single pound more than the Act ordinarily does, but it does add another method of borrowing to that which now exists.
    MR. WILLIAM JONES: I am sorry to have again to trouble the House with a grave industrial question which has arisen in my constituency owing to the unhappy misunderstanding, which has been prolonged for a period of more than twenty-one mouths, in the Penrhyn quarry district. I do so now particularly, because of the memorial that was sent to the King some few weeks ago by a non-political organisation in London. They approached His Majesty on the matter in dispute, entreating him to intercede. The King sent a very gracious and sympathetic reply to the entreaty of the memorialists, regretting the continuance of the dispute,
    798
    and also his inability to intervene between Lord Penrhyn and his workmen, but, however, intimating that the letter would be sent to the Board of Trade. Naturally, those seriously concerned and interested, thought the answer implied an obligation, if not a willingness, on the part of the Board of Trade to take the matter up. With regard to the King's letter, I should like to know what is the attitude of the Board of Trade and of its Labour Department. We all know that in 1896 the Conservative Government passed a Conciliation Act in this House. In that Conciliation Act of 1896 several powers were conferred upon the Board of Trade, and I would like to know whether the Board of Trade in this present juncture have endeavoured to exercise any of those powers. Under sub-section D of Clause 2 is an arbitration power. On the application of both parties to the difference, the Board of Trade may appoint an arbitrator. Of course, in connection with this dispute at the present moment there has been no application from both parties: consequently, it is due to the Board of Trade to say that they could not very well move in the matter of the arbitration power. Then comes a sub-section dealing with conciliation. It declares that on the application of either of the parties (employers or workmen) interested, and after taking into consideration the existence and adequacy of means available for conciliation in the district or trade, and the circumstances of the case, they may appoint a person or persons to act as conciliator or as a board of conciliation. In this case, of course, the Board of Trade may say that neither of the parties has applied, and that there may be no means available. Of course, one would like to know what their answer would be if the workmen applied, as they did in 1897, when there was an unhappy dispute in the district, and what the attitude of the Board of Trade would be if such an application were made. The whole district is ripe for conciliation. Moreover, many attempts have been made by disinterested and impartial persons, who have nothing at all to do with the dispute on its merits, to bring about conciliation, so that the Board of Trade may rest assured that there are adequate means and persons to assist in trying to bring the parties together. But that will not exhaust the powers of the Board of

    799
    Trade under the Conciliation Act. Subsection B declares that they can take such steps as to the Board may seem expedient for the purpose of enabling the parties to the difference to meet together, by themselves or their representatives, under the presidency of a Chairman mutually agreed upon or nominated by the Board of Trade, or by some other person or body, with a view to the amicable settlement of the difference. That is with regard to the matter whether any of the parties have made an application. But even that does not exhaust the means. Sub-section A of the Clause, in view of all the other difficulties with regard to arbitration or conciliation, enables the Board of Trade to inquire into the causes and circumstances of the difference. I appeal to the Board of Trade whether any of these sub-sections have been enforced or any of the powers exercised. If not, why not? There have been attempts made outside Parliament and outside Government obligations. In fact, three attempts have been made, and all three attempts, I am sorry to say, have been signal failures. The last of all was made by the Carnarvonshire County Council, in February of this year. Feeling that, in view of the serious differences at Bethesda and the consequent loss to the parties concerned, as well as to the neighbourhood and the country generally there from, the County Council thought an attempt should be made to bring the parties together, in the hope that by personal intercourse and friendly discussion of the points at issue, an amicable settlement might be arrived at in the interest of all parties. Two gentlemen were deputed by the County Council. One was the Sheriff of the county, who was of the same complexion in religion and politics as Lord Penrhyn himself, and the other gentleman was a Liberal, and ex-chairman of the County Council. Both were magistrates, and men in whom not merely the County Council of Carnarvonshire, but the whole of Wales, had the utmost confidence. There was a correspondence with a view to bringing the two parties in this dispute together. In a letter communicated to Lord Penrhyn, these two gentlemen assured him that the sole object of the County Council was to offer their friendly services to both sides,
    800
    and they disclaimed any desire to interfere between employer and employee. They asked for an interview with the accredited representatives of the men. The men readily assented to the desire and wish of the County Council, placing no barrier or obstacle whatever in the way. They then communicated with Lord Penrhyn, and he replied thanking them for the courtesy with which they approached the subject, but declaring that he had, at the outset of the trouble at the Penrhyn quarry, declined to recognise the existence of any right of interference by any person or body corporate having no connection with the quarry. At the same time, Lord Penrhyn said—
    "I fully appreciate the good intentions of the Council in wishing to take any steps in their power which might possibly conduce towards a settlement of this unhappy dispute, and if you think there is any good purpose to be served by an interview, as I am still unable, through illness, to leave my room, I have instructed Mr. Young, chief manager, to meet you."
    So the men and the general manager (Mr. Young) were interviewed. After that, there was a delay, through the illness of one member and illness in the family of another. Last April the correspondence was resumed, and the two gentlemen communicated a letter to Lord Penrhyn in the following terms:—
    "We are now ready to resume the work entrusted to us by the County Council, and having again seen the men on the subject, and obtained generally their views, we would be glad if your Lordship would give us a personal interview at your early convenience,"

    thus merely adopting the suggestion of Lord Penrhyn in his first letter. Lord Penrhyn, in his reply, said—
    "I am convinced that an interview of that nature would be so mischievously construed into a declaration that I now recognise the principle of outside interference, that I regret being unable to give you that interview. But"— and these words are significant— "I am, however, far from wishing to interpose any obstacle in the way of your giving my late employees the benefit of your advice, and if you can assure me that you adhere strictly to your statement concerning non interference, Mr. Young will be glad to meet you at his office, and give you any further information which may assist you, on the understanding that any negotiations as to the resumption of work at my quarry by such of my late employees as I am prepared to receive back must come directly from the men themselves, and not through the medium of a third party."

    801

    The deputation naturally expressed regret at Lord Penrhyn declining to give a personal interview after the deliberate hint he had given in the letter thanking them. Their whole object was to offer their friendly services to both sides. As to the behaviour of the men, the deputation have put it on record that they waived every point which might be an obstacle in the way of meeting Lord Penrhyn, and passed a resolution thanking the County Council for their kindly offices in endeavouring to bring about a friendly settlement. I ask, could it be possible to arrange any amicable settlement when the two parties—the deputation and the men—only met Mr. Young, a servant of Lord Penrhyn, who had been criticised during the dispute? Everybody must see that Mr. Young, having managed the quarry, the workmen, no doubt, had a dispute with him as to the management, and that the object desired was that the men should meet Lord Penrhyn himself, or if that could not be, that Lord Penrhyn and the men should meet the two gentlemen appointed by the County Council. The latter wrote to Lord Penrhyn—
    "Your lordship writes as if you expected us to take sides, and advise the men only, whereas we have attempted to carry out the resolution of the Council by seeing both parties interested. We should not feel ourselves at liberty to give advice to your late employees more than we should undertake to advise your Lordship."
    The deputation also expressed regret that their friendly efforts to bring about a successful termination of the trouble had failed, and in their final letter to Lord Penrhyn, said—
    "We attribute the want of success to your lordship's declining to give us a personal interview."
    The attitude of the men has been not only commended by the County Council, but by nearly every trades union in the country, which has come to their support with trades union funds. The men at Bethesda have said over and over again at their mass meetings that they are willing to place the whole mutter in the hands of an impartial tribunal, and yet that is how Lord Penrhyn treated them and their attempt to bring about conciliation. Of course, after twenty-one, months of striking, there has been a great deal of distress. Some of the men have gone bade, but 2,100 are still
    802
    out. Out of 2,800 who originally worked the quarries at the outset of the dispute there are 700 now at work, of whom not more than one-half were strikers. The others are old men and boys and other men imported from other districts. So practically the bulk of the skilled workmen are kept out of the quarry. Naturally, although they have a strong union, and although the British working-men and sympathisers have supported them gallantly, there is distress. The Federation of Trades Unions has sent deputation after deputation to investigate the facts, and it has been found that, although there is no actual suffering owing to want of bare necessities of life, the amount given out has been totally inadequate to do more than enable the recipients to keep body and soul together. A number of the skilled workmen have left their homes. Hundreds of those homes have been built by the workmen themselves. It is all very well to say that the men can go to England and South Wales in search of work, but is it likely that they will leave the homes they have built or in which they have invested the savings of years? Those who have gone to South Wales and elsewhere earn a precarious living. Hundreds get only casual employment, and out of the proceeds have practically to keep up two homes. It is only fair to say. too, that throughout the strike they have eked out of their small pittance contributions to keep up their schools and chapels. One witness describes a batch of those old workmen, who had never before left Bethesda, returning on Saturday night to spend a few hours with their families—
    "It was touching to see old and wearied men with while or grey hair streaming over their foreheads, toiling up the village street to spend a few hours in the homes which they had never had occasion to leave since their birth. Rather them remain on the funds these old men would go away for such weekly sums as they could obtain."
    The situation, therefore, is unique. Owing to the incidents and exigencies of home life, many of the men have a kind of tribal instinct which keeps them around Bethesda, where they have built their institutions, their schools and chapels. Other disputes have been settled this year in Germany and America, where leading men on both sides have joined the organisation of

    803
    labour and capital in order to put an end to industrial war. These men want only the same rights and privileges as are enjoyed by their fellow-workmen in England. In fact, they ask for less than the miners of Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire had obtained. Everywhere else employers have come to recognise that the organisation of labour is more necessary now than at any previous time, not only for the purpose of securing industrial peace, but for the safety and progress of all concerned.
    I will not detain the House by going in detail into the merits of the question. I simply desire to show the House that everything outside Parliament and Government has been done to bring this unhappy dispute to an end. All those efforts have failed. Yet, in this year of grace, which marks an epoch in the civilisation of the world—a year in which the troublous war in South Africa has been brought to an end, and, thanks to Lord Kitchener, a peace, which I hope will be abiding, has been attained—when next Saturday the King is to be crowned, amnesty proclaimed, and liberty hailed throughout the land— in the midst of it all, this dispute stands alone. Is it possible that all means are exhausted? Is it not right that I should ask today—and through this House claim the sympathy of the whole nation —that the Board of Trade or the Government, either in their official capacity or in an unofficial, private, or friendly manner, should use all possible means to bring both parties to an understanding, to restore thousands to their homes, to revive trade in this unsettled neighbourhood, and to cause prosperity once more to smile in the unhappy district of Bethesda?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOAED OF TEADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): It is only natural that the hon. Member should take an interest in this dispute, the circumstances of which, whatever view we may take of its merits, we all deplore. The hon. Member has gone at considerable length into the history and the course of the dispute. I will not follow him in that respect, but will content myself by stating the line taken by the Board of Trade in connection with the matter.
    804
    What are the powers of the Board of Trade under the Conciliation Act? They may, on the application of one of the parties, appoint a conciliator; on the application of both parties they may appoint an arbitrator; and without the-application of either party they may inquire into the circumstances of the case, and endeavour to promote a conference between the parties. No application has been made to the Board of Trade by either of the parties to this dispute. It was impossible, therefore, for us to appoint a conciliator or an arbitrator. We have, of course, kept ourselves informed of the circumstances, and we might have sent a representative to endeavour to bring the two parties together. The reason we have not done so is that we came to the conclusion that any action that was within our power was not likely to be attended with successful results. The hon. Member himself will admit that it is a remarkable circumstance that in the whole course of this long dispute neither party has appealed to the Board of Trade, and I think I am justified in taking that as a sign that the parties themselves do not conceive that in this instance the intervention of the Board of Trade would be productive of good results. Outside bodies have, in two instances, made application to the Board of Trade. On November 30th, 1900, the Bethesda Urban District Council passed a resolution that—
    "the President of the Board of Trade be approached, beseeching him to bring his influence to bear upon the parties to the dispute, with a view to get them to adopt the provisions of the Conciliation Act."
    The reply to that letter was that we would consider the suggestion made, but—
    "That the Board of Trade understand that the terms of settlement of the dispute which occurred at these quarries in 1896–7 contained detailed provisions for meetings between representatives of the workmen and the management for the settlement of disputes; and it is unusual for the Board of Trade (unless on application from both sides) to take such action as you suggest in cases in which machinery for dealing with disputes has been mutually agreed upou."
    We heard no more in connection with that application, but we received a further letter on May 11th, 1901, from the

    805
    Carnarvonshire County Council, forwarding a memorial to the President praying—
    "That your honourable Board do intervene, acting under the powers vested in you by the Conciliation Act of 1896, with the view to a satisfactory determination of the dispute."
    To that we replied that we had not received an application from either of the parties to the dispute asking us to take action in the matter, and that we had no reason to suppose that any intervention on our part would be successful. The hon. Member referred to a petition to the King. There was a petition addressed to the King—not from the district, however, and still less from the parties concerned; but from the Swindon and District Trades Council; it was dated June 9th, 1902. That was sent to the Home Office, and forwarded thence to the Board of Trade. The petitioners prayed that His Majesty would be pleased to use his august influence with Lord Penrhyn towards the settlement of the dispute. Our reply to that was—
    "With reference to the petition to His Majesty from the Swindon and District Trades and Labour Council, on the subject of the Bethesda quarry dispute, which has been referred to this Department, I am directed by the Board of Trade to say that they are always willing to exercise their good offices if the parties concerned so desire, but no application from them has been received."
    That is the only petition to the King that has been received at the Board of Trade, though I have seen a statement in the newspapers that another petition has been addressed to His Majesty.
    I think, after what I have said, the House will agree that the Board of Trade exercised a wise discretion in not attempting to intervene in this matter, and that, if they had attempted to do so, that intervention would probably have done more harm than good. The hon. Member and I have had many communications on this subject, but I do not think he has ever pressed me very strongly to do what I myself think would have been an unwise act—viz., to thrust the intervention of the Board of Trade, on the parties, one of which, at all events, is not willing to accept it.
    MR. WILLIAM JONESreminded the right hon. Gentleman of the power to inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute. The workmen in the 1897 dispute did make application.
    806
    He was not authorised to ask that kind of intervention unless the workmen themselves felt disposed to repeat that application. But would the right hon. Gentleman give the workmen, through the House, an intimation that if they did make an application he would intervene?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I could not undertake that, because, even though one party in the dispute did apply, it would still be for the Board of Trade to consider whether their power of intervention could be usefully exercised. The experience of the Board of Trade in previous disputes is an additional reason why they should be exceedingly cautious before they intervened.
    *MR. KEIR HARDIE: If the workmen have not made approaches to the Board of Trade with a view to having this dispute brought to an end, it is not from want of desire on their part to have the matter referred to arbitration, but because they have the painful experience that any action which they might suggest for ending the dispute would be declined by Lord Penrhyn for no better reason than that the workmen had suggested it. That being so, it seems to me that the direct responsibility is thrown on the Board of Trade, Apart altogether from the power conferred upon it to intervene in these matters generally, it is the duty of the Board of Trade, to inquire into the circumstances of this dispute and make a report. If that had been done in this case, the position of Lord Penrhyn would have been so untenable that he would have been only too glad to agree to the intervention of the Board of Trade with a view to having this dispute settled. I do not agree with the hon. Member that this is the only case of its kind. There is an almost parallel case in connection with the coal mines of Yorkshire, where the dispute has lasted eighty-five weeks. There is this difference between the two cases—that in the Yorkshire coal mines case arbitration or conciliation was attempted and a report was given. The coal owners refused to accept the award of the arbitrators, whom they themselves had assisted in selecting; and,

    807
    although it is now four months since that award was given, the collieries are still idle. The action of Lord Penrhyn in refusing all arbitration raises the question of whether greater and compulsory powers of interference in these matters must not be given to some public body. I am myself against compulsory interference, but at the same time, if large employers of labour such as Lord Penrhyn are to be allowed to refuse to allow the intervention of the Government, then it appears to me that some form of compulsory intervention by a public body would be desirable in the public interest. It seems strange that a man like Lord Penrhyn, who is not a whit better than the 3,000 men he has locked out, is able to defy the strongest Government of modern times and a special Act of Parliament. When it is a question of sending soldiers to Bethesda, Lord Penrhyn is ready enough to call upon the Government, and the men are not consulted, and when it is a question of bringing on conciliation with a view to promoting peace and terminating a dispute, the Government appear to let Lord Penrhyn do as he likes then also. But I did not rise to speak of this dispute. I rose for the purpose of referring to another dispute, in which a Government Department, or, rather, more than one of our Government Departments, are interested, and which has not yet received the attention of this House which its merits require. I refer to the dispute at Gibraltar. I will not enter into the causes of dispute, because it would not be in order; but I may be allowed to say that the statement of the Colonial Secretary, in reply to a Question put to him by myself, that the cause of the dispute was the refusal of the men to take the old rate of pay, and their demanding double pay, must have been the outcome of mistaken information. A federation of employers, the Free Labour Party, has locked out the workmen, and the point of my complaint, is that the military and naval authorities, and Sir George White, the Governor, have not only taken sides with one party in the dispute, but have used the Government war ships, and the docks, and the soldiers and sailors, in order to assist the employers in defeating the workmen. Now this is a very serious matter. It
    808
    has been claimed for the State that its business is to make and keep a clear ring for a fair stand-up fight between the two contending parties, and where that rule is observed, I should be the last to complain, but in this case, when the Employers' Federation desired to import Moors to take the place of the men they had locked out, the Admiralty sanctioned the use of a gun-boat for the conveyance of Moors, and that when ships were laid up and unable to discharge their cargoes owing to the lockout the military authorities, presumably with the sanction of Sir George White, gave the use of the soldiers and sailors to discharge the cargoes, although the vessels were not Government vessels, and did not contain Government cargoes, but were vessels of private persons trading for gain. It is not the business of the Government to supply blacklegs, from the Army for the purpose of suppressing a trades union. Our soldiers and sailors are for quite another purpose, and should not be called upon to intervene in a dispute between employers and employed. Before the debate closes, I hope we shall have some statement from the Government Benches as to why this was allowed to be done.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The hon. Member who has just sat down has called attention to an important matter, and I so far agree with him, that I think, as a general rule, no one should interfere in a dispute between employers and employed on either side. My belief is that those engaged in such disputes should be left to themselves to fight it out till one side gets the upper hand, and if that were done I believe labour disputes would become far less numerous than they are. But these workmen to whom the hon. Member has referred are working in a fortress in which they are only allowed to live by the sufferance of the Governor, and the Governor is not only justified, but compelled, to take every step in his power to keep the fortress efficient as a fortress by clearing vessels which would otherwise block the way. In my opinion, the Governor was perfectly right, when he found work

    809
    stopped and stores accumulating and freights not being handled as they should have been, in intervening.
    *MR. KEIR HARDIE: My complaint is that there were thousands of workmen to perform this service, and that the Government refused to employ them unless they abandoned their trade union, and that they imported Moors to do the work.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think there must be some confusion in the mind of the hon. Member. The Government surely would never do that.
    *MR. KEIR HARDIE: That was the attitude of the Employers' Federated Trades Union, and the Governor of Gibraltar took the side of the Employers' Federation, and refused to employ the workmen until they abandoned their trade union.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Still I cannot see that the Governor was wrong in the action he took, because he is the Governor of a fortress, and he is compelled to do things that it would not be right or desirable in ordinary circumstances to do Now, Mr. Speaker, the Appropriation Bill, I regret to find, contains an entirely new Clause, suddenly sprung upon us this day without any notice, and, although I am not going to discuss it at any length, it seems to me to be fraught with considerable danger, because it not only leaves the Chancellor of the Exchequer at liberty to borrow from the Bank of England on condition that he repays that borrowing in the next quarter, but it adds as an alternative the power of borrowing, not for three months, but a probable nine and a possible twelve months. It enables him to issue Treasury bills in any quarter which he need not pay off until the end of the financial year. I do not say that that is a power that ought not to be given, but I do say that it is a new and extraordinary power to give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that it will require the very close scrutiny of the House. Another new point about the Appropriation Bill is this. In the ordinary way
    810
    it is usually taken at the close of the session; it is the end of Supply, and when it is passed the session ends, and we go away. That is not the case here. Here we are in the middle of the session. We are about not to prorogue, but to adjourn. The end of the session, properly so called, will take place in November or December, and we shall then have no Appropriation Bill, and shall be without any, such opportunity as is usual of discussing matters of interest to the House which may arise between now and then. The two great tasks of the session—one the drastic alteration in the Rules of Procedure, and the other the Education Bill, both remain unfinished, and the hardest and most disputable part of both is yet to come; for, like the contractor who built the Turkish railways, the Government have built that easy part of the lines which lay along the flat, but have stopped short as soon as they got to the mountains, and left that harder part untouched. One blessing which this session has undoubtedly produced is the blessing of peace, and, in my opinion, much credit is due to the Government for the way in which at last they secured peace—so much credit as to outweigh what some of us think their serious faults in the preceding stage of the war, and the negotiations before the war. But in order to make this blessing effectual, we must regard the end of the war as the beginning of the lessons taught by it, and certainly the Government shows less eagerness to formulate and enforce those lessons than might have been expected. A Commission is going to begin, but when it is going to end, its inquiry I do not know. I suppose that before the conclusion is reached and finally applied in the shape of an improvement of the unimprovable War Office, we shall probably all be dead and gone. But there remains the settlement of South Africa, and that is a task which is perhaps harder than the war itself. The first act of that settlement has shown an absolutely proper spirit on the part of the Colonial Secretary. The despatch in which he refused the suspension of the Cape Constitution was, in my opinion, a manly, a statesmanlike, logical, and unanswerable despatch, and it gives good promise of wise and statesmanlike action in proceeding with the settlement. But you will not

    811
    gain from such action the fruits it ought to bear, so long as any contrary spirit to that of the despatch exists in any Government official in South Africa. It would be affectation to conceal that I am referring to Lord Milner. No doubt he is a very clever man. But he is a logical-minded, latin-minded man—a man who sees the end and not the difficulties, a man who runs his road straight across the hill instead of going round it, a man who sees the end to be attained and not the difficulties in the way, a man without great human sympathies or any great knowledge of human nature and weakness. I hold that for a settlement which turns on the dealing with such a people as the Boers he is not the best kind of man to be left there, and promises ill. Lord Kitchener, on the other hand, is a very human man, with a great knowledge of human nature; and if I had to choose, I should prefer to send him back to make the settlement with the Boers, whom he understands and who understand him, even at the cost of sending in his place Lord. Milner as Commander-in-Chief in India — a post which, with proper supplication, I have very little doubt Lord Milner would be prepared to accept. But if the end of the war is a blessing to the country, it is not an unmixed advantage to His Majesty's Government. During the war all their lukewarm allies became fast friends, and all the critics were muzzled and chained; but now that the war is over the allies are beginning to cool down to lukewarmness again, and the critics are loose and unmuzzled with no lack of subjects forcriticism. His Majesty' Government must remember that large as is the majority they command it not eternal. It will not last for ever in the country. It will probably no remain intact even until the end of the present Parliament. The Government may think themselves secure until the next general election, which they may think is certain not to be until four years hence. I am not so sure of that. A large number of the Members of which the Government majority is composed hold their seats by a very precarious tenure. Some owe their seats wholly to the war, others wholly to the union with Ireland, and many of the Conservatives hold their seats largely by the
    812
    votes of Liberal Unionists. But recent events, such as the corn tax and the Education Bill, may have had—certainly have had—an influence on those seats which perhaps was not anticipated, liberal Unionists are Liberals first and Unionists next, and the corn tax and the Education Bill have notoriously rendered many of them hostile to the Government. This is a serious element. Members of the present Government majority who hold their seats upon so precarious a tenure may feel it necessary to modify their conduct, to make terms with their constituents against the evil day to come, and to placate them by conduct which will not involve a continuance of blind and unreasoning obedience to the Government Whips.
    Yet it is most important that the country should have a strong Government. There are movements in Europe of a somewhat ominous character, the common note of which is that they are movements for disturbing the status quo which we desire to maintain. Italy has not only left the status quo, but has gone over to the other side, and in my belief there will be but a short time before she takes the step of annexing Tripoli, for which she has long been preparing. But that step will undoubtedly raise again the whole Eastern question—not alone in Tripoli, but also in Macedonia and Albania, if not also in Anatolia and Mesopotamia. I think His Majesty's Government are not unaware of this. The First Lord of the Treasury the other day gave me the somewhat startling answer that the Government had issued no instructions to the Fleet. I presume he meant no new instructions, yet it is a fact that a very short time ago a large British naval force was found in the waters of Corfu, and for aught I know is still there, ready, I suppose, to take any part that might be required in the adjacent territory. Once the Eastern question is raised again, there will be raised what has been the Russian objective since 1871, when, to the eternal shame of England, we threw away the fruits of the Crimea, and agreed to allow Russia to build a fleet on the Black Sea. She has been building a fleet ever since, but in order to make it effectual as a menace, she has always wished to gain power for her own men-of-war to

    813
    pass through the straits outwards from the Black Sea while prohibiting the entrance of other fleets inwards. That, when it is pressed, will involve repudiation of existing treaties, and will be a serious matter whish the Government may have to face very shortly. I asked the First Lord of the Treasury a question about the proposed formation of a Latin League, and he told me that he knew nothing about it. The French papers know a great deal about it. They are full of it. The only people who are ignorant of it are our Government. We are told that by this League it is intended to form an alliance between France, Spain, and Italy, with Russia at the back of the whole three of them. If that alliance takes place, it will certainly raise the most momentous issues ever placed before the Government. In what position shall we find ourselves in the face of the serious matters arising? We have no alliance in Europe, and we scarcely have a friend. By a strange perversity, it is a most unfortunate fact that when we come to add up the debit and credit side of Lord Salisbury's policy we find that it is far from being the great success which some of his followers would have us believe, and that it has left a distinct balance of achieved disadvantage to us. Lord Salisbury has constantly shown personal antipathies and strong personal affections in politics, not alone to individuals but to nations. What is the result when you come to balance the accounts? He quarrelled with France, for which he never concealed a contempt as ill founded as it was impolitic. He quarrelled with Spain in consequence of a most ungenerous and impolitic speech which he made on the morrow of the destruction of the Spanish fleet at Manilla. Healienated Turkey. He deserted Persia and threw it into the lap of Russia. Finally, he failed either to resist Russia or, what would have been better still, to come to an agreement with her. These are all the results of Lord Salisbury's policy. On the other hand, he has persistently courted Germany with dangerous and undignified assiduity and with the most obsequious compliance. Even in the case of the South African War, when we succeeded in capturing one or two German vessels whereof one was certainly full of contraband of war, he ordered their
    814
    release without examination, and paid compensation to Germany, besides presenting a piece of plate to those who assessed this shameful tribute.
    I am sorry that the First Lord of the Treasury does not feel it necessary to be here when the Appropriation Bill is being discussed. I have some serious matters to refer to which might, I think, be worthy of his attention. One of them is these concessions which we know have been made to Germany. What other concessions are there of which we do not know? We are aware, for it has been publicly avowed, that there is a secret treaty between England and Germany. I say this—I believe, and I have reason to believe it—that that treaty contemplates, in certain events, nothing less—and I commend this fact to the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who is present—than a partition between England and Germany of the Portuguese possessions in South Africa. Is that so? If it be not so, will the Government lay that treaty on the Table? It is not a new treaty—it has been several years in existence. It certainly deals with most important and vital questions to this country, and I do say that Parliament and the country have a right to know what are the stipulations of the treaty of which I have received this very ominous account. Our only ally in Europe is Portugal, and it would seem that we are contemplating the partition of her territories which we are by treaty bound to defend! Portugal can hardly be content with that. I will do no more now than express the hope that our new Foreign Secretary, Lord Lansdowne, may prove less exasperating to our friends and more imposing to our enemies than his predecessor as Foreign Minister has proved to be. But if, in foreign affairs, we have cause for anxiety, still more have we with regard to that which is the final sanction of our power and the final source of our influence with all foreign countries—I mean the Navy. It is well-nigh twenty months since Lord Salisbury reconstructed the Government and appointed as the new head of the Board of Admiralty so promising a Minister as his own son-in-law must necessarily be. We did expect that some stop would be put to that process, which I can only call the sapping and

    815
    undermining of naval efficiency, begun and too long conducted by Lord Goschen; but it has long been made clear that Lord Selborne does not carry guns enough for the place. Old abuses are continued; new needs of the Navy have been neglected. We are told, and it is admitted, that there is a shortage of stokers, of engineers, and of artificers—in fact, we are short of everything. The Secretary to the Admiralty, after serving under the Administration of one of the most favoured families in England, has found and has avowed that there is an inadequate intellectual equipment, and a need of more complete preparation. The same thing, in short, is avowed to be true of the Navy that has been proved to be true of the Army before the Boer War, namely, that there exists inadequate capacity in its rulers and an inadequate preparation for action. If, in addition to the inadequate preparation in the Army, we have to admit inadequate preparation in the Navy, our influence in foreign affairs will become smaller and smaller. I will not now allude again to the question of Gibraltar, except to say that I think the House, as well as myself, was very badly treated in regard to it. A very important Commission was sent out to Gibraltar, consisting of persons selected for their high capacities; and, although many unworthy manœuvres prevented the Committee from doing what it ought to have done, they made a unanimous report, which, however, was thrown away with contempt on the advice of a local pilot.
    Now I come to what is, in my opinion, a matter no less important than those to which I have already adverted. Four weeks ago all but two days. Lord Salisbury, for reasons which are still mysterious, but which must certainly have been grave, unexpectedly and suddenly resigned the premiership and returned to the Sovereign the seals of office—so suddenly, and, indeed, so secretly, that even his visit to the Sovereign was kept secret and was withheld from the usual public announcement until three days afterwards Lord Salisbury's Administration having ceased to be, and the First Lord of the Treasury having been charged with the formation of another Administration— very properly, charged, no doubt, because with his previous history and traditions the Colonial Secretary could certainly hardly have taken up as Premier the con duct of the Education Bill—the country is
    816
    still, after that interval of four weeks, without the smallest knowledge or hint as to what the new Administration is to be, or on what principles it is to be formed All we know is that two principal members of the old Administration are not to be embraced in the present one—Lord Salisbury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have gone, and have left the rest sitting on the Front Ministerial Bench. It reminds me of the story told by Sheridan on a somewhat similar occasion—the story of the cobbler of Athens who had cobbled so diligently and well, and sat so long in the same place, that when he rose to go away the sitting part of him remained attached to the Bench.
    But that will not altogether suffice. It will not do alone. Some addition, some change will have to be made, and. think the time has arrived when the First Lord should take the House and the country into his confidence. On what principle is this new Administration to be formed? The out-going Administration has outlived some and wearied many of its friends. It has certainly shown a cynical contempt for all those qualities which have hitherto been held to constitute Parliamentary, and to suggest administrative, ability, and, in fact, for all qualities except those founded on consanguinity. They took some and left others—like Providence, and as inscrutably. Why was the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich left? Why leave him out? He is full of ability and bursting with Parliamentary capacity. He is too independent perhaps, disposed to be too difficult and too little pliant for the administrative purposes of such a Government. That well-defined sharp profile which would represent his portrait, etched in with the very vitriol of ecclesiastical conviction, would ill consort with the tame gallery of family portraits of the late Administration. But of that gallery I will say no more; some of them are about to have their faces turned to the wall, others are to be clean cut out of their frames. It is as to who is to succeed them that I respectfully ask for information.
    The First Lord of the Treasury has enormous advantages in his new situation. He is the First Lord of the Treasury, which is the only post that the Prime Minister ought to hold. He

    817
    sits in this House, which is the only House in which any Prime Minister ought to sit. He is, therefore, by the authority that his post gives him and by the support that he derives from this House, fitted to be the head of a new Administration. He will be in a position now to do that which has hitherto been lacking, namely, to exercise that guidance and co-ordination amongst the members of the Government which every Administration requires, and to prevent that dangerous system of Government by Departments, under which every Department is allowed to have its own way, and which has long existed with such mischievous results. The First Lord of the Treasury will now be in his proper, directing, commanding position. He will be the master of the Cabinet. But is the First Lord of the Treasury to be the real or only the nominal head of the Administration? Is the ruling policy to be ordained, and is its conduct to be dictated by him, or by the chiefs of the Party which contains the most extreme Socialists and Radicals? Is this to be his Administration or somebody else's? What sort of partnership is it to be, if it is to be a partnership? Are the old men to be kept on, and are the old ways to be pursued? Is this new Administration to be founded like the last upon the principle of the domination of one family, or on a similar principle—the domination of two families? Or, finally, does the right hon. Gentleman mean to take a broad survey, from Greenwich to Peru, of all the talent he can find on those Benches, and to adopt and utilise it in order to form an Administration with a capacity sufficient to conduct the arduous affairs of this great Empire? Is he going to make a hurried stop-gap, or seriously to form such a Government as will endure? If he is, I believe he will gain the favour of this House and will retain the support of his own Party.
    But let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that upon the composition of the new Ministry some of the support of the Party will depend. Five-sixths of the Premier's supporters are Conservatives, and, although a proper proportion of power should be given to the other sixth, it should not be an undue proportion. Yet even if it be an undue proportion, we shall be satisfied if the men hoisted into the
    818
    new positions are men of capacity. Upon the formation of this Government depends the future of the Conservative Party and the future of the country, and I may also add, the future of the right hon. Gentleman himself. If the right hon. Gentleman will give us such assurances as will lead us to believe that he means to form an Administration which will conduct the affairs of the Empire with ability and with a sole view to the interests of the country, then we shall be satisfied; but if not, if any of the objectionable and inadequate principles to which I have adverted are to guide its formation, the right hon. Gentleman will prepare for himself and his colleagues a disaster more general and complete than has ever yet befallen any Minister or any Party, and for the country a period of unrest and uncertainty, of strife and confusion.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I wish to make a few remarks about the situation in China. Unfortunately the time at the disposal of the Committee was too limited to enable us to receive from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when the Foreign Office Vote was discussed, such information as I think we were entitled to have in regard to several most important questions connected with our foreign policy and our foreign affairs. I desire to ask the Under Secretary whether, in connection with the handing back of Tientsin to Chinese jurisdiction, His Majesty's Government have secured that Russia shall simultaneously hand back Neu-chwang to Chinese jurisdiction? It will be within the memory of the House how unfortunate was the course taken by His Majesty's Government in China at the outbreak of hostilities. It was the inaction and want of foresight on the part of His Majesty's Government which gave Russia the opportunity of entering into military occupation of the railway from Tientsin to Neuchwang, a railway a large portion of which was mortgaged to British bond holders, the net earnings of the Northern portion also belonging to them as collateral security. It was well within the power of His Majesty's Government at the time of the outbreak of hostilities in China to have effectually guarded and protected British commercial interests in North China. It had always been our practice to send a gun-boat to Neuchwang to remain there during the winter, and surely just as we

    819
    sent forces to occupy Tientsin His Majesty's Government ought to have sent a couple of gun-boats to Neuchwang in order to protect the interests of the British residents there at the commencement of hostilities, and also to protect our commercial interests. For in Neuchwang there is a British trade of no less than £3,000,000 annually being conducted, and it was well within the ability of His Majesty's Government, not only to have sent a gun-boat or two—such was the strength of the British squadron in Chinese waters at the time —to Neuchwang, but to have landed a force of blue-jackets to occupy Shan-hai-Kwan and other places, in order to protect the line of railway. Most unfortunately, that action was not taken by His Majesty's Government. We have a right to look to the Government, in the first place, to secure that Neuchwang shall be handed back to Chinese jurisdiction by the Russians simultaneously with the handing back of Tientsin by the Allied Forces; and in the second place that the railway from Tientsin to Shan-hai-Kwan shall be handed over simultaneously with the railway from Shan-hai-Kwan to Neuchwang. That, I think, would be a fair and reasonable method of dealing with these two important questions.
    Then, I ask whether the Under Secretary can give us any further information as to the progress in the arbitration regarding the land at Tientsin taken possession of by Russia. The arbitration is being conducted by the British and Russian Consuls at Tientsin with Mr. Detring as umpire. I trust that the Under Secretary will be able to tell the House that the reference made to the arbitrators was limited. We cannot forget that when the Russians occupied the railway station at Tientsin there were documents in a safe in the station offices showing clearly the title of the Northern Chinese Railway Company to the possession of certain lands there; and that after the Russian occupation it was distinctly seen that it had been forced open and rifled of its contents I do not think this important fad should be ignored. It ought to be brought forward in connection with the settlement, and His Majesty's Government should effectually protect the rights of British subjects and British bond holders.
    There is another important question and that is the conclusion of a new commercial treaty with China. Hon
    820
    Members on both sides of the House were, I am sure, immensely gratified by the news which came to us a week or ten days ago, which seemed to promise he conclusion of a commercial treaty between this country and China on equitable lines—on lines calculated to increase trade generally throughout the Chinese Empire, and which would be of a highly satisfactory character both to British merchants and to China. I wish to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary for information on three or four important points which ought to be dealt with in connection with the conclusion of this new commercial treaty. In the first place, what steps are being taken to secure the insertion in the Treaty of what would call "the most favoured nation clause" in connection with the construction of railways. We have been informed in the House that British contracts have been entered into for the building of 2,800 miles of railway in China; but up to the present moment not a single yard of these 2,800 miles has been laid down. Preliminary contracts have been entered into; but no ratified agreement has been come to. Now, in my opinion, it is of the highest importance to the commercial interests of this country that some clause should be inserted in the new commercial treaty setting forth the terms of what I have called "the most favoured nation clause"—that is that the conditions for the construction of these railways in China should be as favourable to us as to any of the other Powers. Another point is the extreme desirability of trying to arrive at some agreement, as between the various Powers, undertaking the construction of railways in China—that equal railway rates should be accorded to all nationalities, irrespective entirely of those by whom these railways have been constructed.
    There is another point of great importance in connection with the final conclusion of this commercial treaty, and that is the question of the regulations in regard to carrying on the trade on the inland water-ways of China. Three years ago it was announced in this House that an agreement had been come to between His Majesty's Government and that of China, under which, in the future, British ships would be able to take British goods to every riverside town in China. We all know that that

    821
    agreement has not been given practical effect to. Now, another opportunity has arisen of having a settlement, on the lines of that agreement to which I have referred, as announced" in this House. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give tonight some definite assurance in regard to this most vital question. The regulations at present in force only allow British ships to trade between two Treaty ports, and they are not permitted to take in or discharge cargo at any intervening place on the rivers. It is obvious, therefore, that under such conditions they cannot make any profit, or develop the trade it is possible to do if they had freedom to take in or discharge goods at the intermediate riverside ports.
    There is another question which, however, I do not see referred to in the information which we have read in the newspapers in regard to this Commercial Treaty. That is, that care must be taken that the same import duties should be levied on the land frontiers of China as on goods taken to China by sea. At the present moment Russia, France, and, for that matter, England, on her Burmese frontier, have the right to pay only two-thirds of the duty of 5 per cent. That did not much matter to England, because we did not have much trade in China over our Burmese frontier. But France from Tonking, and Russia from Manchuria are in a very different position. And if the duty is raised on imports over the land frontiers to 10 per cent., and they are only required to pay two-thirds of that duty, that will save them 3 or 4 per cent., which will handicap British traders very considerably. I hope that an equitable settlement of this important question will be insisted upon by His Majesty's Government. Then there is the question of the postal arrangements in China. Russia, France, and Germany have recently been establishing postal services in China, and they have been extending them in every direction. Lately these Powers have introduced, under their postal services, postal packets into China without paying Customs duties upon them, whereas British traders have had to pay Customs duties on all their postal packets. I hope that the British Government hold that the Chinese Government have the postal and telegraphic prerogative throughout the
    822
    Chinese Empire; and I would like to ask the noble Lord if our Government will discourage—in conjunction with the United States and Japan —any further extension of these foreign postal services in China, especially as they afford a preferential rate of trade to the merchants of these nations?
    The only remaining point to which I wish to refer is the question of the likin. In the last debate the noble Lord said that His Majesty's Government had been compelled to abandon the idea of securing the abolition of the likin to any great extent, although he admitted that some changes of a very limited character might be made. I was, at that time, disposed to take the same view, and even now, from information derived from the press, I am not really sanguine as to what may be achieved; but the noble Lord should give the House some information as to what has been arranged on this important matter of the likin. What I cannot understand is how the provincial exchequers in China are to be recouped for the abolition of the likin. I am told that there is to be a surtax of 6¼ per cent.; but it is well within the knowledge of those who know, that that will not represent more than a tithe of the amount which the Chinese officials have wrung from the traders of China. I am very much afraid that a 6¼14 surtax will be so small a proportion of what they have been receiving that they will strive to draw as much as ever from the traders to China, although I believe that the great Viceroys of the Yangtsze region are honest men. When I had the pleasure of visiting them three years ago they expressed themselves as having a strong desire to put the administration on a sound financial basis. The officials should be honestly paid and have no temptation to appropriate money passing through their hands. These gentlemen pointed out the difficulties in the way of this reform which was eminently desirable, but we must be careful how we deal with this matter lest we raise a greater barrier to trade and the development of trade than now exists.
    In regard to the payment of the indemnity in gold, we know that, owing to the depreciation in silver, the monthly payments for the indemnity have increased

    823
    enormously with regard to the number of taels that have to be paid in to cover the indemnity, and it is with the greatest pleasure that I heard the Secretary of State say in another place that the Government agree with many of us that the increase of facilities for trade with the interior was of infinitely greater benefit than the money received, and that they are proposing to accept payment of the indemnity at the same exchange value for the tael as prevailed at the time the protocol was concluded. That is highly satisfactory to the commercial community in this country. Turning to the question of Shanghai, in the very heart of the Yangtsze region which has remained in a perfectly normal condition throughout the whole of the disturbance in China—and where these great Viceroys preserved the life and property of foreigners. We have not conferred upon us by the protocol any right whatever to occupy Shanghai by a military force, and having regard to what happened and to the splendid and enlightened action of the great Viceroys in these regions and the fact that we are withdrawing from Tientsin, we are bound to evacuate Shanghai at the earliest possible moment. I quite agree that it would be undesirable for us to do so until the other nations withdraw theirs, but having regard to the fact that the Germans have erected brick barracks at Shanghai, and that they have stated through their Foreign Secretary that they regard Shanghai as a necessary base of operations, I feel some apprehension that in their action there is a danger of the permanent occupation of this district in the heart of the Yangtsze. I hope the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs may be able to confirm the reports we read in the newspapers that the Governments of the United States, France and Japan have expressed their willingness to consider the question of the early evacuation of this place, and I hope the Government will be able to announce to the House that that is their view and policy and that they will do all in their power to carry it out at a not distant date There is another question with regard to Shanghai about which I asked a question three months ago—a question of the arrest of a Chinese subject in
    824
    the International Settlement at the instance of the French, upon a warrant rearing the senior Consul's signature. We have 250,000 Chinese in the International Settlement of Shanghai, and it has always been the recognised practice that before a Chinese subject can be arrested in the International Settlement a case against him ought to be, and should be, brought before the mixed court of the Settlement, and that the Court should decide that a primâ facie case had been made out for their arrest. In this particular case, under a warrant signed by the Senior Consul, at the instance of the French, an arrest was effected. What was the position? At Shanghai we had an exclusive concession, and America had an exclusive concession. We joined those settlements together and made the International Settlement, under which all people of all nations enjoy equal rights and privileges. The French settlement at Shanghai was conducted on totally different lines; they regarded it as a piece of France where they enjoyed sovereign rights, and they would not for a moment tolerate the warrant of the Senior Consul being executed there. The whole arrangement was therefore inequitable, and I hope the Government will see that all necessary steps are taken, in conjunction with America and Japan, to insure that a similar line of action shall be taken, whether in the French or in the International Settlement. I am sorry to say that the British Consul weakly became a party to this arrest, and I hope the Government will convey to him—he was temporarily in office at the time—their disapproval of his thoughtlessly giving way upon a question which is vital to the preservation of the just liberties and civil rights of the 250,000 Chinese subjects in the International settlement of Shanghai.
    I do not wish to traverse ground already covered in the last debate on the Chinese question; to raise again, for instance, the important question of the recognition of respective spheres for railway concessions by the British and German Governments, but I would draw attention to the impossibility of reconciling the statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 25th of March last with the statement of Count

    825
    von Bulow as to the German commercial policy in Shang-Tung, Anglo-German Agreement. The stipulations in Clause 4 of the Treaty of 1896 applies to the whole of Shang-Tung, and secures to Germany all the cream, and to this country only the skimmed milk, of railway concessions. That Clause is incompatible with the treaty rights of other countries, and with the policy of the open door in the provinces of Shang-Tung, and it cannot be reconciled at all with the action and speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State. It has been said that Germany has no intention of enforcing the stipulation in the treaty of 1896, and is prepared today to throw open Shang-Tung to the trade of all nations. I hope the Under Secretary will be able to confirm that view of the situation, so that British traders may have the satisfaction of knowing that Shang-Tung is as open to them and other nations as it is to Germany for the purposes of commercial enterprise. The question of our position in China has had more vigorous attention on the part of the Government recently than it had a year or two ago, and I can only assume that peace having been concluded in South Africa, our hands have been freed, and we are enabled, while avoiding agression, to uphold our just rights in China. Our commercial Members have agreed together, to the number of 120, drawn from both sides of the House, to support in every possible way the promotion of better commercial relations and anything likely to promote them all over the world, and the noble Lord the Under Secretary will have the consciousness that in any new departures he makes in the direction of upholding commercial rights and interests in any part of the world he will have our united support.
    MR. TENNANT: With permission of the noble Lord, as I understand the Home Secretary is commanded elsewhere in a few moments, I should like to draw attenion to a question not so important as that which has just been referred to, but still an important question. It is with regard to the protection of our workers from fires such as that which unfortunately broke out in Queen Victoria Street, in which so many lives were lost. I asked the Home Secretary whether those premises came under his jurisdiction as a workshop, and he came
    826
    to the conclusion, after consideration, that they did not. What were these girls employed at when this fire took place? They were engaged in putting together the component parts of an electric lampholder. They were "adapting an article for sale," or else I do not understand the English language. If that was not clear enough to bring them within the provision of the Act, it is still more clearly established by the fact that one of the girls was proved to be engaged in putting ropes of artificial flowers round electrical wires. Is not that "ornamenting an article"? The right hon. Gentleman naturally and properly instructed his inspector to go down and see if these premises were used for any of these purposes which I have described, but the inspector did not think it necessary to ask any questions of any one except the managing director, whose interest it was to say they were not. The next question, which arises with regard to this unfortunate fire is, were there not forty persons employed? The place that was burnt, it is true, only contained twenty-five persons, but in the next premises there were 100, so that in the two occupances there were 125 persons. I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the last Factory Act was before the House he had an opportunity of giving protection to places where less than forty persons were employed. What I want to ask is: Can nothing be done to protect people n future from such a ghastly death as that which overtook these unfortunate people? If that is not so, will the right hon. Gentloman look at a Bill which appears today and which contains provisions which, had they been in force during the past two months, might have prevented the recent loss of life.
    THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): No one could regret more than I do the terrible accident which happened in Queen Victoria Street. As to whether the premises were a workshop within the meaning of the Act, the District Factory Inspector, who is one of the most highly competent inspectors, inquired into the facts, and made a Report leading to the conclusion that what took place on the premises was not an "adapting for sale." So anxious were we at the Home Office

    827
    to get to the root of this business that we were not satisfied simply with the view expressed by the inspector, but we had up at the Home Office samples o the work on which the employees were engaged, and every gentleman who was connected with the Act came separately to the conclusion that the processes which were gone through on the premises were not an adapting for sale. There was one single case where a woman did some ornamental work, but I am advised that that case did not bring the premises within the Act. The process gone through in the building was only putting together certain parts for the purpose of being sent away, when they had to be taken to pieces again in order to make them ready for sale, and that was considered by every Gentleman in the Department to be not within the Act. Even if the contrary had been their view, there could have been no interference by the Home Office as regards means of escape from fire, because there were only twenty or twenty-two persons employed in the place.
    MR. TENNANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was only one entry to the two houses where 122 people were employed?
    *MR. RITCHIE: I am not acquainted with the specific point mentioned, but I am informed by my advisers, on whom I must and do rely, that the facts did not bring the building within the Act. I am exceedingly sorry there is no law which seems to touch buildings of this kind, and I am inclined to think there ought to be some; law which would make it necessary that buildings of this sort, where people are employed, should have proper and efficient means of escape from fire, but that ought to be done, not by an Amendment of the Factory Act, but of the London Building Act. That is a matter which will receive consideration, and so also will the Bill referred to by the hon. Member, in order, as far as possible, to safeguard persons from the risk of death by fire.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): I am well aware that many hon. Members desire
    828
    to speak on different subjects, and therefore my remarks shall be very brief. Every discussion on China divides itself into three great divisions:—(1) the old history of the war; (2) the question which arose at the conclusion of the war for restoring the normal state of things; and (3) the future policy of this country. With all these topics the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division has dealt. The hon. Gentleman spoke with condemnation of the attitude of the Government in old times in allowing the Russian occupation of Neuchwang. He apparently forgets the circumstances in which that occupation took place. We must remember that all the powers were agreed in common action in order to save the Legations and to avenge the outrages which had been committed against them; and each Power advanced in its own way. We advanced from the sea; the Russians advanced from the Manchurian frontier; and, naturally enough, as Neuchwang lay on the line of that advance, they occupied the place just as we occupied the points which lay on our line of route. That being so, the hon. Member asked when Neuchwang was going to be restored to the Chinese. I think the hon. Member knows as much about that as I do. In the Manchurian agreement the evacuation by the Russians of provinces in China is divivided into three divisions. A part is to be evacuated in the next six months; another part in the course of another period of six months; and the remainder in another period of six months. In the course of the first six months the Russians agree to evacuate all that part in which the railway from Shan-hai-kwan to Neuchwang lies; in the course of the next six months they agree to evacuate that province in which the town of Neuchwang is situated; and they agree in the third period of six months to evacuate the remainder. That is the present state of things. The railway to Neuchwang lies in that province of Manchuria which will be handed back n the first period of six months under the Manchurian agreement.
    Reference was next made to the indemnity. The efforts of this country lave been directed as far as possible to restore the normal state of things in China as soon as possible and with, on he whole, as little onerous conditions as,

    829
    possible. No doubt the indemnity is a very large figure, a figure of course for which the Powers were severally responsible; and since then the fall in silver has made it difficult for the Chinese to pay; The Government have taken note of that fact, and they have made a proposition to the Powers to mitigate the severity of the debt which the Chinese have to pay. Whether that proposal will bear fruit or not I cannot at present say At any rate the hon. Member may be comforted by the thought that the British Government have done their best in that respect.
    The same observation applies to the evacuation of Shanghai. The Government quite recognise that the sooner Shanghai is evacuated by the international troops the better. There is no reason why they should stay, and the Government have proposed to the Powers occupying Shanghai that there should be an evacuation. But the House will realise that it is impossible for Great Britain to evacuate Shanghai alone. We must have in that respect, as in all other respects, the most favoured nation treatment, and if we evacuate Shanghai, as we are anxious to do, it can only be on the condition that the other Powers evacuate Shanghai at the same time.
    The hon. Member then asked about the arrest of certain Chinamen, and the demand of the French Government that they should be tried before a French Court rather than a mixed Court. That raises a question of interest and of some importance which is still under negotiation; but I may say that the French view apparently is that where the prosecutor or the plaintiff, as the case may be, resides, there is the place where the trial ought to take place. The Government, on the other hand, contend that where the prisoner or defendant resides there is the place where the trial" ought to take place. That is a question which must be decided after negotiation, and these negotiations are proceeding.
    The hon. Gentleman proceeded to ask me about commercial treaties. That is a subject which belongs to future policy, to the policy of re-construction in China which this country is pursuing. It is impossible for me to tell the House, as I had hoped to do, fully what the commercial treaty
    830
    entails. We had entertained hopes that before now the negotiations would have arrived at a successful result. I may say, however, that we were to some extent surprised at finding that the difficulties which presented themselves in arriving at a conclusion on the commercial treaty did not appear so formidable as at one time they seemed to be. This was largely due to the intervention of the two great patriotic Viceroys to whom the hon. Member has referred; and I should like to join in the terms of commendation which he used in regard to them. The difficulties, however, are great, and the-first suggestion made by Sir James Mackay certainly did not meet the views either of the Chinese or of the commercial community in this country. In the first place, under the scheme originally presented to the Government there was no practical redress in case the Chinese made default. The most important object of the commercial treaty is the abolition of the illegal charge of likin, which was imposed on all merchandise in transit through China: The method which Sir James Mackay originally proposed was that in return for the abolition of the likin there should be a certain increase in the Customs which are imposed on foreign goods at the ports of entry. But if the Government had agreed to that, and if there had been no practical redress in the case of Chinese default, clearly the last state of things would have been worse than the first. Another difficulty was that, as the proposal stood, it was Protective to Chinese industry against British industry, because it imposed heavy duties against foreign trade and no corresponding excise against the Chinese home trade. Lastly, there was a want of proportion between the amount of money which the Chinese were to lose by the abolition of the likin and the amount of money which would be gained in lieu thereof by the increase of customs duty. The disparity was so great that it was evident that no solid arrangement could be made on that basis. These three difficulties constituted the problem for which Sir James Mackay had to find a solution, and the Government have every hope that he has found it. There are certain difficulties in the final conclusion of the treaty, and if they are overcome I think the House will agree that it will be an accomplishment which reflects no slight credit on Sir James

    831
    Mackay's skill as a negotiator, and his Knowledge as commercial representative of Great Britain in China.
    I would like to take this opportunity of saying that it is not accurate to run down the position of Great Britain in China as some hon. Members do. The proportion of trade which we held in China in 1900 was almost exactly the same as we held in 1898. There was a slight diminution, but it amounted to little: so that in spite of all the troubles through which we have gone, in spite of the assertions made by hon. Members and other critics of the Government that the position of Great Britain is always retiring further into the background, our trade maintained almost the same percentage in 1900 as in 1898. If I had time I might show that in the amount of railway concession which this country has obtained we stand at least as high as any other competing Power in China. The hon. Member wants us to have a most favoured nation clause in regard to railways. I am not at all sure that such a thing is practicable, but the matter shall be considered. Every railway has features of its own which are the subject of special bargaining in each case; and I am not at all sure that it would be practicable to lay down the proposition that whenever any advantages were given to any country in respect of a particular railway concession those advantages should be extended to every other railway concession throughout China.
    There was another notable speech delivered earlier in the debate, in which the hon. Member for King's Lynn touched on the subject of foreign affairs. For the most part of the hon. Member's speech was a criticism of the late Prime Minister and of the present Prime Minister, but I do not think that the defence of those exalted personages is a subject with which I have anything to do. There were, however, one or two observations of the hon. Member which require a sentence from me in reply. The hon. Member will have it that we have quarrelled with every country in Europe and Asia. I can assure the House that that is not so. We have not quarrelled with France, or Spain, or Persia, and we have certainly not
    832
    quarrelled with Turkey. The hon. Member has also suggested that there is a secret treaty between this country and Germany. If there is such a treaty it is secret, and therefore it follows, ex hypothesi, that the terms cannot be given. The House need not think for a moment that our position in Europe is at all insecure. On the contrary, we stand very high, and we are on very good terms with our allies in every part of the world.
    MAJOR SEELY: It is with much diffidence that I raise a matter of great importance, but its great gravity makes it necessary to discuss it at this late period of the session—I refer to the lack of organisation in our Naval and Military services and to our unpreparedness for war. A recent occurrence has brought the matter forward in a very strong light. No real attempt has been made to grapple with the question since the Hartington Commission. As the result of that inquiry two widely different shades of opinion were expressed. The majority of the Commission, which include the present Leader of the Opposition, declared that no case had been made out for a complete change in the organisation of the services. The opinion of Lord Randolph Churchill and the minority was that, unless a change were made, we should find ourselves unprepared for war owing to the lack of a body bound to study strategic questions. The views of the majority have been utterly disproved by every military event in the last fourteen years. It was pointed out in the memorandum of the present Leader of the Opposition added to the Report that it was not necessary for this country to have a department corresponding to the office of Chief of the Staff in other countries, because our position was such that India could take care of herself, and in the event of a European conflict the problem, from the nature of the case, would be confined entirely to the Navy.
    Recently we have been involved in a war, which was not a small one, although perhaps it was not a very large war, in which the lack of preparedness foreshadowed by the late Lord Randolph Churchill, has been shown to a startling degree; and I submit most respectfully that now is the time when peace has been restored and when we are at peace with

    833
    all foreign nations, that we should consider the matter and take up the question which was settled wrongly by the Hartington Commission, and we should at once, before we are forced into it by panic and disaster, set our house in order. I do not wish to dwell now upon certain instances of the lack of foresight revealed during the late war, because they are all fresh in the memory of hon. Members, and they will be amply dealt with by the Commission of Inquiry; but it is necessary to say that a certain class of the mistakes which occurred in the war, were such as were not likely to have been committed by any other Power in the same circumstances, and they were entirely due to lack of the Department which I and others desire to see established. In every war there are mistakes of organisation and of detail, but the great mistake, the almost fatal mistake, of not being equipped with the latest modern inventions is due alone to our present system.
    I wish to call attention now to what took place very recently with regard to the Navy, upon which we are informed alone depends the safety of this country. I do not myself subscribe to that view, although I think we might very well spend more money on the Navy and less on the Army. I do not subscribe to the views that the Navy is our only defence. The Navy ought to be reasonably well able to cope with any likely enemies; but it appears that on May 23rd last the Lords of the Admiralty went to Barrow to inspect some submarine boats and to witness some tests of a recent invention for increasing the armourpiercing power of shell. This invention has already been adopted in the navies of all our possible enemies, and all that is claimed for it has been found to be true. It was found that whereas without this Johnson cap a shell penetrated only three inches of a twelve inch armour plate, with the cap and with the same velocity the shell penetrated twelve inches of the same plate. I do not wish to enter into details, but it does seem to me that this is a graver matter than any of the kind which has been brought before the House for many years, for it means that if, in the past months, we had gone to war with any of our probable enemies, our ships would have gone to the bottom, while theirs would have remained afloat. This matter has
    834
    appeared in the public press and is well-known to everyone outside this House, and so there can be no objection to bringing it before the House. Unless some satisfactory explanation of this matter can be given, it is proof positive that something is wrong. Unless some new Department is formed, or the existing Departments are reorganised, we shall continue to be behind other nations in adopting new inventions. It is not as though we are ever likely to reach finality in this matter, for the ingenuity of man in finding means to destroy his brother man seems to be illimitable.
    What I desire to know is are we to continue, as we have continued for the last fourteen years, to be always anything between two years and a few months behind our probable enemies? Therefore I would most respectfully ask the Prime Minister who has, I understand, given sympathetic answers to the questions that have been addressed to him on this subject, to consider this question at once, so that we may have established some kind of Department which shall fulfil the functions we seek. And what are they? The first thing is that this body shall have power to consider these matters and together with that power full and absolute responsibility. The second thing which is often lost sight of is that this body should have nothing else to do but consider strategical problems and investigate new inventions if necessary. New inventions will play so great a part in the efficiency of the Navy in the future, that I am certain the representative of the Admiralty will agree with me when I say that this is a question which is well worthy of the serious consideration of the Admiralty. Who should form this body? I do not venture to suggest the exact constitution of this Board or Department. It is obvious that the suggestions made by Lord Randolph Churchill would probably fulfil all that was needed; but if we continue the haphazard method under which any recommendation for the adoption of a new invention meets with the reply that there is no money, we shall be finally landed in disaster. We shall not always fight against a nation enormously inferior to ourselves in numbers, and it is perfectly certain

    835
    that if we engage in war with a nation nearly equal to ourselves we shall feel the want of such foresight as was lacking at the commencement of the late war more bitterly than ever we felt it before. The proposal of the late Lord Randolph Churchill was that there should be a Secretary of State for both services: that under him should be a Lord High Admiral for the Navy, solely responsible under the Secretary of State, and also a Commander -in-Chief of the Army, solely responsible. Under the heads of the Army and Navy should be a Chief of the Staff, whose duty it would be to investigate every new invention and every possible combination of our enemies, and to lay the result of their investigations before the heads of their own Departments, who would lay them before the Secretary of State. Then, in consultation with the heads of the Departments, the Secretary of State would decide what money could be spared to each, and would come to a decision which would be based on the real necessities of the case. Every one knows that the present system does not carry out the scheme as we should wish to see it carried out, and as the late Lord Randolph Churchill wished to see it carried out. At the very time when we were omitting, on the ground largely of expense, to buy quick-firing guns for land services and high velocity guns, of the value of which there are hon. Members in the House who can speak—we were building great Barracks, the utility of which was certainly doubtful, and the urgency for which was obviously none at all. I cannot, at the moment, refer the Prime Minister to the particular barracks, of which I speak, but they will be found in the Estimates for that year. Some of them were barracks on Salisbury Plain, for which I should have thought the reasons were very much more against than for. But I do not wish to press the matter with regard to the past, because it wants no pressing. I suppose nobody will contend for a moment that under our present system we always employ the money this country can afford to the best advantage. I would humbly suggest to the First Lord of the Treasury, that if he could state to the House that this matter shall receive his consideration he will bring back to the minds of many persons in this country,
    836
    on all sides of politics, a feeling of confidence which they now have not. I believe that most of his countrymen see that minor mistakes in war are inevitable, and are not prepared to judge hardly any mistakes made in the late war, but they do say that, in regard to the large and more urgent problems, we fall behind other nations. They say we do not set ourselves to grasp the problems we have in hand to the best advantage, and I ask, therefore, that the First Lord should, if possible, give some indication that the matter will be dealt with.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware that my hon. friend was going to bring forward this subject; but everybody will admit that it is one of the deepest interest to this House and to the nation at large. Certainly I am the last person to complain of the tone of my hon. Friend's speech, or of anything he said in the course of it. At the same time, I cannot help feeling that possibly he takes too dark a view of what has been done and is being done and is in process of accomplishment in the direction which he desires. He tells us that the lessons of the South African war show clearly that we have fallen behind foreign nations in dealing with the larger-problems of military defence. I do not deny his statement that we may be behind other nations; it is very difficult to deny it, because, let him remember, no foreign nation has been tried. Let me remind him that no foreign nation has been asked to send 250,000 troops 8,000 miles from their shores to deal with warfare under conditions which, up to the present time, no nation has really had to face. I am not quite certain that if my hon. friend, were to criticise, as he is well able to do, the very much smaller operations which some of the great military nations have had to perform in the course of the last ten years, he would not find a deal of food for reflection, and might not come to the conclusion that the errors which he has charitably, but I think truly, reminded us are always found in the conduct of military affairs, were to be discovered in the arrangements and proceedings of some of our military rivals in not less abundance than, I am afraid, they have been found in the course of our own recent experience. My hon. friend appears to suppose that, by having

    837
    a fixed Department for the purpose of considering strategical problems and projects of invention, all these mistakes would be avoided. I do not think the South African war bears out that view. The opinions that were given on that subject before the war broke out came from probably the largest body of military experts this country has ever possessed, most of whom had had actual South African experience. I am not going over the names, or into the details of the matter. But, as everybody knows, military opinion was practically unanimous. I am not aware that a single discordant note can be found in the utterances of any responsible soldier on the subject of the number of troops that would be required to deal with the Boers, or of the character of the operations. [Nationalist cries of "Sir William Butler."] I have contradicted that statement before, and I repeat that contradiction now. There was no discordant note. If it be true, as certainly it is true—everybody will admit it to be true—that the magnitude of the task was underrated by the Government at the time the war broke out, it was not underrated because we had failed to consult military experts on the subject, or because we had obtained from those military experts any large divergence of opinion.
    Then, my hon. friend thinks that we greatly lag behind in the matter of inventions, and he specially mentioned a particular method of dealing with shells—the Johnson cap—as an illustration of our backwardness in these matters. It is for my hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty rather than myself to deal with details of administration; but I will venture to point out to my hon. friend, without attempting to make any survey of what we have done either in the way of inventing ourselves or adopting the inventions of others, that so far as my judgment goes, the body of gentlemen who ought to consider the great strategic problems presented by this Empire are probably not the same body of men who would be able properly to invent the best kind of powder, or the best shells, or the best guns. You cannot centralize the "brains" in these departments. Probably the strategical problems are widely apart from the problems presented by successive inventions; and I do not think anything would be gained by attempting to take these problems out of the
    838
    hands of the War Office and the Admiralty, who have the machinery for dealing with them and for experimenting upon them.
    There is one other point in my hon. Friend's observations which I should like to criticise, and that is connected with finance. If I understand him rightly, his idea is that when you have got this joint Department for dealing with strategical problems and with inventions you are to give them, as it were, an unlimited power of drawing upon the national purse. They are to lay down what is necessary in order to deal with the military defence of the Empire, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day would have no other office than that of finding the money by which their drafts upon the national Exchequer were met. I do not think that is a practical suggestion. I do not think the House would ever tolerate it. I think, if they did tolerate it, the consequent disorder in our financial system would alarm even those who most courageously look forward to the inevitable increase of expenditure brought upon us by modern Imperial conditions. So much by way, not of criticism, but of comment on my hon. friend's speech. Now let me say I entirely agree with him in thinking that we cannot pay too much attention to the larger problems of strategy, partly military, partly naval, which the defence of this Empire involves. I do not think there is any responsible statesman at the present time who would endorse the simple account of our national responsibilities which my hon. friend quoted with great disapproval from some early authority. I do not think he mentioned the authority. But, at all events, I do not think any responsible statesman will now say that India can take care of herself, and all we have got to do is to see that we have a sufficient Navy to look after these islands, and, when the storm breaks upon us, to protect our vast commercial interests in all parts of the world.
    The problem of Imperial defence is one of the most difficult and one of the most complicated problems that any Government or any body of experts, can face. The problem which other nations have to solve is in most cases one of extreme simplicity. They have not a great Colonial Empire to defend; they know with absolute precision what are their dangers, from what quarter those dangers

    839
    come, what is the magnitude of them, and by what organisation of counter arrangements these dangers can be met. I do not care to mention names. Everybody can put in the names, and fill up the outline I have given. Everybody knows that while the problems of foreign Governments may be onerous in respect of the amount of financial contribution required, and may be difficult in consequence of the difficulty of providing an adequate force, the intellectual and speculative elements of those problems are incomparably below those of the problems presented by the British Empire. In these circumstances I entirely agree with my hon. friend that we cannot leave this matter to one Department, or to two Departments acting separately. It is a joint matter; it must be a joint matter. I hope my hon. friend will take it from me that the Government are fully alive, and have, if I may say so, for long been fully alive, to the difficulty of the problem which presents itself to his mind, and which he has explained to the House; and that that problem is one always present to our minds. It is one which we certainly do not mean to neglect to meet and grapple with to the best of our ability.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE,: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for the statement he has just made. I am sure my hon. and gallant friend, the Member for the Isle of Wight, has secured the object he wishes to attain so far as it can be attained. The responsibility must rest on the Prime Minister, who is the only person in this country who has the authority over the two Departments primarily concerned, to impose that co-ordination for the defence of the Empire which is so much desired, and the necessity of which the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted. The gravity of the circumstances must force these considerations more and more upon the House, although I do not think they are more strongly re-inforced by mere points about particular inventions. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken j of financial control. Now, while no one would desire to break down the principle of financial control, it has been stated over and over again, without contradiction, that the Intelligence Department of one of the two services is
    840
    undermanned, and that proposals for strengthening that Department by an additional man for each sub-division have been made and vetoed. That may not yet have come to the knowledge of the Prime Minister, but the responsibility of the Prime Minister must be complete. There marks of the hon. Member for King's Lynn strengthen the urgent necessity for dealing with this subject. The hon. Member has told the House that we are isolated as regards our policy; that such alliance as we had with Italy for the maintenance of the status quo is; gone. Under the circumstances existing in Italy, as mentioned by Signor Prinetti when he last spoke on the subject, I cannot but think that the whole House must have felt gratified that the Prime Minister evidently has his mind filled with this subject. In re organising his Cabinet the right hon. Gentleman must take into view the necessity of immediately increasing that co-ordination of the two services which the House of Commons so earnestly desires.
    MR. DILLON: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is with the utmost reluctance that I interrupt the enormously important debate initiated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight. If I had had any assurance that the debate tonight on the Appropriation Bill would have been allowed to take its normal, its invariable, course I would have been the last man in the House to interrupt the debate, but in view of the rumours that are current, I must take the earliest opportunity of bringing before the House some very important and urgent matters in connection with the administration of Ireland, and which ought to be debated on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. The first is the persistent refusal of the Irish Executive to deal, by way of criminal prosecution, or by any other means, with the case of Sergeant Sheridan. ["Oh, oh!" from the Ministerial Benches]. Yes, I mean to raise it again. I can quite understand that some hon. Members opposite are sick of the case. So were the Irish Members, but so long as the Government allow this criminal to remain at large, we mean to demand, in season and out of season, some explanation of their extraordinary procedure. The second is in relation to the use of the Court Houses in Ireland by the

    841
    County Councils of Ireland which have built them, especially in regard to what has taken place at Cork and Castlebar. The third has reference to a matter of smaller importance, but still of very great importance in so far as it is typical of a great and growing evil; I mean the frightful and ruinous delay to hundreds of poor tenants in Ireland of the sale of estates in the Land Court. In reference to this last point, I propose to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the special case of the MacFarlane estate in South Tyrone. This delay is ruining hundreds of farmers, and leading, in many parts of the country, to hundreds of evictions.
    Let me come to the case of Sergeant Sheridan. I was not surprised to hear the groans in some quarters of the House when this chronic case was brought up, but I think I am justified in again alluding to it, because since the last debate on the subject in the House I have discovered some very important new facts. The first of these new facts is that in the previous day's issue of the Dublin Independent newspaper there appeared two whole columns from Sheridan, giving his address in America as Lower Massachusetts, and renewing his defiance of the Castle authorities, asserting his innocence, and challenging the Government to take action. I ask is it to be tolerated that this mail, who has been denounced by the head of the Irish Executive as a criminal of the darkest dye, and against whom they had ample civilian evidence, if they never put a policeman in the box, is to be allowed to remain in his safe retreat at Lowell, Massachusetts, continue his defiance of the Government, and assert that all the statements of the Chief Secretary are falsehoods, thus giving the Chief Secretary the lie? In this letter Sheridan goes through the charges against him seriatim. I am only giving a paraphrase of his words, but Sheridan winds up by saying that he was made the victim of a superior officer; that his sole offence was that he had reported five constables for drunkenness, one of whom was a Protestant. The officer—I suppose it was District Inspector Irvin—said, "You will suffer for this yet." Sheridan says—
    "I wrote to my brother who is a head constable in Tubbercurry, asking him for advice, and he advised me against doing it."
    842
    Sheridan goes on—
    "I am anxious to get a public hearing in the matter, and I hope to return home and be cleared of all the charges that have been made against me."
    Sheridan, who gave the lie to the Irish Executive, is in Lower Massachusetts, which is just as much within the jurisdiction of the Government as if he were residing in Dublin. He asserted that he was an innocent man, and that the Government were afraid to put him on his trial. They had heard, in the course of previous discussions, of the case of Sergeant Keegan, who was one of the confederates of Sheridan, and was induced by the terms of indemnity to make a statement. Keegan was granted a compassionate allowance of £200. Now, Sergeant Keegan also, has something to say on this matter in the Cork Examiner on the 26th of July. A letter written by Keegan was published in that journal and it is quite a propos of this debate. Keegan, in that letter, described his connection with the Limerick (Hospital) case, and said—
    "I am now prepared to give the facts in this case, together with the way in which this secret inquiry was conducted, either before a Court of Justice or any Special Committee composed of the most advanced Nationalist, Liberal and Conservative Members of the House of Commons, provided they are independent of the Irish Executive."
    Here is a letter published in the Cork Examiner, and written by one of the policemen who received the indemnity. Here is an answer to the Chief Secretary, and the miserable crutch on which the right hon. Gentleman hobbled through the last debate is knocked from under him.
    I ask the Chief Secretary, now that he is face to face with these conditions, what he means to do. We are told by the Irish Executive that they were debarred as a matter of honour from putting Keegan into the box. I should mention that Keegan is at present residing in Ballindary, within two or three miles of the town of Roscommon, and there is no difficulty in getting at him. But if these constables are not available as evidence, the Government has complete civilian evidence to obtain the evidence he requires. He can have it from a confederate of Sheridan, who says he is prepared to make a clean breast of the whole affair. But, even apart from the police evidence, the right hon. Gentleman can get ample

    843
    civilian evidence for the purposes of the case. It is perfectly true, and it may interest the House to know, that at the secret inquiry the witnesses who were examined were not confined to the police. On the contrary, a number of civilians came forward and gave most damaging evidence against Sheridan, and expressed their willingness to repeat it in a Court of Justice. The Chief Secretary has never referred to the civilian evidence. He has never told us why it should not be used if necessary. The Attorney General, it is true, gave a lame explanation by endeavouring to make out that the evidence of Dan Magoohan, one of Sheridan's victims, would not be sufficient. Dan Magoohan was sent to gaol for two years, but his evidence was quite sufficient to prove perjury. But he need not rely on Magoohan alone. I have a letter here from a trustworthy gentleman in the County Leitrim, in which he mentions the names of more than one civilian witness who gave damaging evidence against Regan and Sheridan. Yet the Chief Secretary makes no attempt to proceed with the case. The civilian evidence against Sheridan is, in my opinion, superabundant for the purposes of the case. I have it on the testimony of a respectable man, Patrick M'Loughlin, that Sergeant Sheridan took charge of Drumcowra police barrack in June, 1898, and that, from that date, a series of outrages occurred. The National School windows were broken, animals were mutilated, carts were broken, and Sheridan asked a man named Farrell to moonlight a man named Curran, a cousin of Dan Magoohan's, because Curran had gone about saying that it was Sheridan committed the outrages for which Dan Magoohan was arrested. M'Loughlin asks me in his letter to ask the Chief Secretary where was Constable M'Dermott, who was barrack orderly on the night Dan Magoohan was arrested by Sergeant Sheridan. Magoohan was brought into the barrack at 10.30 on the night of his arrest, and not as sworn by Sheridan at one o'clock, and I ask did M'Dermott make a false entry in the barrack books in order to corroborate the false evidence of Sergeant Sheridan. M'Loughlin further said that people were summoned and fined for drunkenness during the period of Sheridan's stay in this district, although they were well known to be
    844
    teetotalers. This was a peaceable neighbourhood until this ruffian Sheridan came into it. Crimes broke out when he came, and it is absolutely free from crime ever since he left it.
    I put this to the Government. I say that no matter how wearisome and disgusting to the House of Commons may be this case, it will come up again and again until we have a fair and satisfactory answer. Will the Government do either of two things—either will satisfy me—will they extradite Sheridan and use the evidence they have against him, or will they appoint a Committee of this House to investigate the whole matter? Can they maintain that a strong prima facie case is not made out, that the public mind is not full of suspicion, and that from the point of view of their own interest and that of the police force in Ireland, it is for their interest to leave this police force under a heavy cloud of suspicion? I cannot help contrasting the attitude of the Government in this matter with their attitude at the time of the Parnell Commission, when the forgers were at work in an endeavour to blot the character of the Irish representatives. Although the charge against the Irish Members rested upon lying and forgery, the Government forced through this House of Commons the appointment of a tribunal to try the charges, and denied to us the commonest justice and fair-play, so much so that the whole Opposition protested against the action of the Government. Now here is a crime affecting their own honour and the whole character of their administration in Ireland. Here is a criminal whom they admit to be a criminal, who left the country with their connivance, who is still in their power, because he can be extradited, who defies them and challenges them, and says they are afraid to touch him. The Government display, what I think I am justified in saying is a most sinister and suspicious unwillingness to open up this matter and let the public mind be satisfied as to this case. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of his own Government, he should abandon that attitude and let the light of day in upon those proceedings. What is he afraid of? He may be perfectly satisfied that the

    845
    public in Ireland and a large section of the public in this country will be convinced, unless he takes that course, that there is a mass of dirt and evil involved in the whole of this Sheridan business which the Government are afraid to allow the House of Commons to unearth.
    Now, Sir, the next point to which I desire to address myself is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in refusing the County Council the use of the Court-houses. I was amazed when I heard the right hon. Gentleman get up and declare the other day that an outrage had taken place in the city of Cork because the County Council of Cork gave their Council Chamber for the purpose of a political meeting. Had not these Court-houses been used for years for Orange and Unionist meetings by the old Grand Juries, and are they not still used for political meetings? Why, I have addressed many political meetings in the Court-houses of Ireland myself. Political meetings in the agitation for the redress of the financial relations were held in Court-houses, and I spoke in Longford in the Judge's seat at a political meeting held in the Courthouse and a great many meetings on the Catholic University question have been held in Court-houses also. But now suddenly the Chief Secretary for Ireland sends down a High Sheriff to clear out the County Council and their friends the moment they do anything of which he does not approve. Was there ever anything, even in the annals of the Irish Government, more outrageous, more gratuitously offensive, more idiotic than what happened in Castle-bar? In that Court-house last week the County Council and the District Councils had arranged to present Mr. William O'Brien with an address. I am perfectly confident if the proposal was to present the Chief Secretary with an address we would have no Sheriff and no police. This was not a political meeting. It was a meeting of the County and District Councils. Just as they arrived in the Court-house they discovered Lord Bingham, who arrived from Bryanston Square, in London, and who had been kicked over to Mayo to perform this job by the Chief Secretary. They found him
    846
    in possession, and all the galleries and stairways and half the Council Chamber in possession of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and packed, in this small town of 2,000 inhabitants. The Chairman of the County Council requested Lord Bingham to withdraw, and Lord Bingham refused. He was asked what was his business there, and he said, "My business is to clear you out if you indulge in political work." The Chairman asked Lord Bingham, "Who is the judge of what is political work?" "I am," said Lord Bingham. Here was set up a tribunal as compared to which anything in Russia sinks into insignificance—Lord Bingham, with 300 police at his back, watching the County Council of Mayo to pounce upon them when, in his opinion, they said anything political. Out of Alice in Wonderland, was there ever anything like this? Now, this action of the Chief Secretary in reference to the Court-house was a distinct breach of faith on the part of the Irish Government. Could anything be more silly, or more calculated to bring the Government of Ireland into contempt, than this action of the Chief Secretary? How would the Chief Secretary deal with Mayo, or any other County Council who wished to present me or any other Member of Parliament with an address, if they did not give public notice of their intention? Lord Bingham would not be there; the disaster would take place, and I suppose the British. Constitution would collapse. But let me make good my contention that the Government were guilty of a breach of faith. This question of the Court-houses was debated at considerable length on the Local Government Bill of 1898, and the Attorney General claimed that the custody of the Court-houses in Ireland should be put into the hands of the High Sheriff for one reason, and one reason only. He said if it was not in the hands of the High Sheriff, it might be in the power of the County Council to deny facilities for the holding of Courts of Justice. That was immediately met, by saying we were quite willing to have provision put into the sections securing that that could not be done; and then the late Irish Secretary, Mr. G. Balfour, said—
    "Hon. Members appeared to be under the impression that the Government were endeavouring to take away from the County Council powers which had been exercised by

    847
    the old Grand Juries. That is not so. What we are doing is to give them the management of the Court-bouses in exactly the same manner as the Grand Juries managed them."
    The Grand Juries were never interfered with when they held political meetings, and these were the words upon the faith of which this House gave its consent to the portion of the Act dealing with the control of the Court-houses. And it goes on—
    "For some of these other purposes—"
    these had been mentioned in the debate as political debates and charity concerts—
    "application would be made to the Sheriff, and the Sheriff would naturally grant the necessary leave."
    I went on to say in a subsequent speech—
    "We were told the Sheriff would grant the necessary leave. We know be would do so to his own friends, hut when we ask for the Court-houses for the purpose of holding Nationalist meetings, of course we will probably be refused."
    Well, I say now that faith has been broken. It is almost inconceivable that the Government should be guilty of such an outrage. These Court-houses were built by the ratepayers' money, the, Government contributing nothing to them; and nothing is more calculated to provoke passion and ill-feeling than that gentlemen like Lord Bingham should act in this way. And when the Chief Secretary begins to lecture us about devoting our oratorical gifts to inflaming the passions of the people, I throw back the charge that by such proceedings as this he is doing far more in that direction than was ever done by all our oratory.
    The other matter I have to refer to is the MacFarlane (Co. Tyrone) Estate. I asked the other day what was the cause of the delay in the sale, seeing that a Receiver had been appointed in 1883, and the Chief Secretary replied that the obstacle was the obstinacy of three tenants, who refused to agree to the reservation of the sporting rights. One-fifth of the whole rent of Ireland, £800,000 a year, was collected by receivers, of whom we have had a sample in Mr. Studdert, let loose on the unfortunate people, with the Court at their back. I take this case because I want to give one instance which shows the intolerable evils of the system which keeps these people in the Land Court for thirty years, not for the sale of the land
    848
    but for the collection of the rents. These Courts were created for the purpose of selling the land, and they had been perverted now to rent-collecting Courts. I do not attach undue importance to this case, but I give it as a specific illustration of a crying and intolerable evil. I have the correspondence between the solicitor who carried through the sale and the solicitor acting on behalf of the tenants. [The hon. Member read two extracts from the correspondence stating that Mrs. Judge Boss could not be induced to buy her portion of the property unless the entire shooting rights were secured to her.] What does that mean? It means that it is absolutely untrue to say that the refusal of any one tenant blocks the sale of the estate. The sale of the estate is blocked because this person who has the shooting will not allow the estate to be sold unless the shooting is assured to the family. Inasmuch as the person who has the shooting over the estate is Judge Ross himself, I say it is nothing short of a scandal. Without pursuing the subject further, I think I am entitled to urge the Chief Secretary to bring this matter under the notice of the Land Judge's Court, and that, unless a proper assurance is given that such transactions will not be repeated in future, he should give facilities next session to a measure putting an end to the monstrous scandal of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland.
    MR. DUFFYcalled attention to the case of a policeman named Muldowney, who twenty years ago was committed to prison for a political offence. It could not be denied that many of the crimes committed at that time were terrible and abominable, but he hoped, if he made out a reasonable case for reconsideration, hon. Members, would not allow their feelings to prevent a generous view being taken of the matter. If one thing more than another had been proved by the history of British rule in Ireland, it was that if a man identified himself with the cause of the people, and endeavoured to combat the powers that be, he was at once marked out by the Crown as an object of attack; whereas, if he chose the path of the slave or cringing hireling, he was elevated into the position of a demi-god or an immaculate saint. The facts of this particular case were that on November 2nd, 1881, an agrarian murder was committed

    849
    in the parish of Craughwell. The usual means were resorted to by the Government to secure a conviction, and after the accused had been dragged to a distant county they were, after a second trial, convicted, and the dread sentence of death was passed upon them. That sentence was not carried out. No doubt, powerful reasons induced the Lord Lieutenant to commute the sentence, but if the man to whom he desired particularly to refer was guilty, he ought to have been hung; while if he was innocent, he should have been liberated, and in that case no man had ever suffered a greater cruelty at the hands of the British Government than this unfortunate policeman. The conviction was secured on the suborned testimony of two dissolute characters— one a drunken tailor who had never been sober, and the other a degraded creature who was out of employment because he thieved his masters' property. Under the circumstances which existed twenty-three years ago, it was preposterous to suppose that a policeman would enter into a conspiracy with two such degraded creatures to take the life of another man. But there was another aspect of the case. A great deal had been said about Sergeant Sheridan, but he ventured to say that the hand of another Sergeant could be traced through this Craughwell business. Recently one of the men concerned was liberated on ticket-of-leave, and was accorded a public welcome at Craughwell, where he declared he was absolutely innocent of the charge for which he had been sentenced. This unfortunate man, who knew perfectly well what he was talking about, believed that the entire case was concocted and thrown together by a policeman, and in that belief he did not stand alone, because the entire countryside believed that this man procured and coached and taught these informers to swear away the lives of those unfortunate men. Why did he say that? [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear!" and Nationalist cries of "Order!"] There were some very good reasons upon which he based that opinion. There was a gentleman named Sullivan who prepared a map of the district where the alleged murderers had been that night. Sergeant Reddington pointed out to Sullivan where the informer was alleged to have been ambushed. It was a most extraordinary thing that from the place
    850
    pointed out by Sergeant Reddington it would be as easy for a policeman to see the British House of Commons as it would be to see the place where Muldowney and his confederates were ambushed. Sullivan was sent down again, and was told by Sergeant Reddington that on the first occasion he had made a mistake; and he took him to another spot, which exactly suited his purpose. There was another mistake made by the Sergeant, in which he said the informer was sitting upon a certain stone on the night of the murder. He did not know where Sergeant Reddington went after securing the conviction of these persons. In the light of the statement made by the poor prisoner after his release, it was a wonderful and extraordinary coincidence that this same Sergeant Reddington, whom the unfortunate prisoner alleges was instrumental in securing his conviction and that of the other unfortunate man now putting in a life term of imprisonment, was a district inspector in the barracks on the night that Sergeant Sheridan brought in the cow's tail. It might appear to Members on the Ministerial side a matter not worthy of their attention; but there was a suspicion throughout Galway that this affair, from start to finish, was started and carried on by the police.
    He hoped the Chief Secretary would take some steps to find out what the relationship in this matter was between Sergeant Reddington and Sergeant Sheridan. Assuming that the prisoners in this case were really guilty, it was a very significant thing that seven men were brought to trial in Sligo twenty years ago, and five of them were let off scot free, though the same evidence was forthcoming against them all. At the first trial the jury disagreed, but during the interval between the first and second trials the Crown were apprehensive that they would not be able to secure a conviction, and they caused a message to be sent to the unfortunate men in gaol who had been tried in the first trial that if they would plead guilty to the crime alleged against them they would be leniently treated and let off with a nominal sentence. These men were perfectly innocent of the crime alleged against them, and, of course, they scorned the idea of pleading guilty. They said that, no

    851
    matter what happened, they would stand their trial, and they went into the dock, and the dreadful sentence of death was passed upon them. Assuming that the men were really guilty, surely, in face of the feeling all over the district, not only in Galway, hut throughout the country, eighteen, years imprisonment ought to have been considered sufficient for this crime. In the face of this kind of thing they blamed Irishmen for not being loyal to the Crown, and not assisting in the administration of the law, but how could they expect Irishmen to revere or respect the law when such things as this conviction for murder could be carried out within the administration of the law. What was the state of public feeling in the county of Galway? All the public bodies had moved in the matter throughout the ength and breadth of the county, headed by the County Council. He had not yet touched upon a, remarkable incident which threw a flood of light upon the strength and sincerity of public opinion in regard to this matter. At the last general election in Ireland, when the candidates were being selected for the constituency which he now had the honour to represent, a person was selected, but the fact that he was a felon precluded him from taking his seat. That man came before the electors and denied all knowledge or complicity in that frightful crime. Quite recently the Government released one of these prisoners, and the very first thing ho did was to deny all knowledge of the crime, and on emerging from the prison; this man swore an affidavit that he knew no more of the crime than a child unborn. In Ireland, the conviction was universal that this unfortunate policeman was absolutely innocent. Why did the Government differentiate between the two prisoners? Why not extend equal clemency in both cases? He asked the Chief Secretary to make it his business to investigate the matter, and if he could see any reason to suggest to the Lord Lieutenant that the sentence should be commuted, hon. Gentlemen in this part of the House would be very grateful indeed. He understood that a sentence for life generally meant twenty years. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether
    852
    this man, who had already been in prison eighteen years, had not now been sufficiently punished. The continuance of this punishment could only have for its object the wreaking of vengeance on an individual, and not the purpose of being a deterrent. There were special reasons for making this appeal at the present moment. In a day or two London would witness a marvellous outpouring of the nation's sympathy towards the King. No matter what the views of hon. Members from Ireland might be in regard to the laws or the administration of Ireland, he ventured to say that they were glad to see that a good sportsman had been, restored to health. On such occasions he understood it was usual for an incoming monarch to signalise his accession to the throne by acts of mercy and compassion. If the Government hearkened to his appeal on behalf of this unfortunate man he was perfectly certain that it would have a profoundly good effect upon the hearts of the people in the west of Ireland.
    MR. TULLYsupported the appeal made on behalf of Muldowney, and expressed the hope that the Chief Secretary would not be prejudiced against this man because he was a policeman who was convicted of an agrarian outrage. The murder took place at Cranghwell on 2nd November, 1881. It was a mysterious murder, and fourteen months after it took place Sergeant Reddington succeeded in working up what ho conceived to lie a chain of evidence, and the policeman Muldowney was arrested. From interviews he had had with the relatives of Muldowney he was convinced that the man was illegally convicted, and that he was innocent of the crime for which he had been eighteen years in prison. The evidence against Muldowney was discreditable evidence. The first man put up was an informer named Rattray, who had been dismissed by his employer because he had been guilty of theft. Another witness was a discharged soldier, who was drummed out of the Army and actually branded with the letters "B C." Muldowney was tried at Sligo at the Spring Assizes, but the first jury disagreed because it seemed to them such an incredible thing that a policeman, who had no connection with that part of Galway, should be one of those concerned in

    853
    the shooting of a land-grabber in the district. It was only when Sergeant Reddington had had an opportunity of amending the case that at the second trial this man was found guilty with Finnigan. The case was put before Lord Spencer, who was Lord Lieutenant at the time. If he had been sure that Muldowney and Finnigan were guilty of this terrible assassination, they would have been hanged. Lord Spencer was not convinced, and the sentences were commuted. Finnigan was released the other day, and on his release he immediately declared his innocence. He had investigated the case of Sergeant Sheridan. He went over the ground with Dan Magoohan where the cattle were houghed. Anyone who saw the ground and compared the facts with the evidence could see at once that Sheridan's story was a "fake," and that Magoohan was innocent. Who was the district inspector there? He was told it was Reddington, who had formerly engineered the Muldowney case. He thought that probably explained some, of the mystery in the Sheridan case. Why was Sheridan not extradited? Ho had no hesitation last winter in bringing forward this connection of Sergeant Reddington and Sheridan. The result was that he was brought up under the Crimes Act and sent to prison for an offence of which he was not guilty. He had been sent to prison six times, and on four of those occasions he was not guilty. The hon. Member condemned the constabulary system in Ireland by which rewards and promotion were given to the men who were most active in getting convictions in agrarian cases. The Chief Secretary spoke of Sheridan as a man of great ability, who dazzled the constables under his charge. The information he had about Sheridan from those who knew him intimately was that he was not a man of great ability. He was what the people called a "bad rogue" and not a clever rogue. The Government were keeping up in Ireland a system by which a premium was placed on the manufacture of outrages by the police. He thought it was quite clear that if the case of Sheridan were properly probed to the bottom very much would come out that would not be pleasant for the Castle system of Government in Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman opposite consisted of an appeal to me for the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown in the case of Muldowney. I will not attempt to argue upon the merits of a trial that took place twenty-one years ago. Mr. Reddington's name has been mentioned, and I think it is most unfortunate that a plea, for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy on behalf of Muldowney should be based upon the insinuations against other men. Much of the matter introduced has been for the purpose of prejudicing the case, but I think we ought not to be swayed the one way or the other by these irrelevancies. It has been suggested that doubt in Lord Spencer's mind led him to commute the death penalty to a life sentence; but in fact it was because the Judge who tried the case recommended the convicted man to mercy on the ground that he was a young man, and had been inveigled into joining a secret society and instigated to the commission of the dreadful crime. That plea of the Judge was entertained, mercy was accorded, and the death sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. A commuted sentence is never treated upon all tours with a sentence of penal servitude. In the latter case a prisoner can earn some diminution of his punishment, but when a man is sentenced to be hanged and that sentence is commuted, the same rule does not apply. Such cases are separately considered, but they are considered, and at long intervals they are brought up under a general rule and the whole circumstances are investigated. It is not for me to say how the prerogative of mercy should be exercised: but I may say that I deprecate most earnestly, most sternly, some of the pleas that have been urged. The hon. Member for East Mayo has once more raised the oft-debated question of Sergeant Sheridan, complaining that my statements on the subject have been inadequate. What the hon. Member means is that the course taken by the Government was unsatisfactory to himself and his friends. But my statement has been full. I have stated everything that the Government have done and what they have not done. That statement may be objected to, the

    855
    hon. Member may think things have been done that should not have been done, and things should have been done that were left undone, but it cannot be said that I have not laid minutely before the House everything that has or has not been done.
    MR. DILLON: What I said was that I characterised the reasons given as inadequate.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member was not satisfied with the course taken, and was therefore not satisfied with the statement. If new facts were adduced no man would be so obdurate as to refuse to consider them, but the hon. Member has not adduced any new facts. The civilian evidence to which he has alluded had been before the Government, and they have taken their course with full knowledge of that evidence which upon examination proved to be not actually evidence, but the assertion of strong suspicion of certain people in relation to events that occurred a year ago. One "important fact," as the hon. Member termed it, was a letter from Sergeant Sheridan published in a newspaper. I do not call that a new fact; in all probability, and I may even say with certitude, it is fiction. I attach no importance to an assertion of innocence on the part of Sergeant Sheridan and I am sorry to find the hon. Member balancing the question of Sheridan's guilt or innocence. I believe Sheridan to be guilty, and in that belief the Government have taken a course for which they may be blamed, but for which I have given a defence. And I refuse to balance between the proof of Sheridan's guilt and the proof of Sheridan's innocence. The next subject to which the hon. Member referred was that of the use of Court-houses in Ireland.
    MR. DILLON; The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the all-important fact that Sergeant Keegan has published a letter expressing his willingness to give evidence before a Court or a Committee.
    MR. WYNDHAM: That is, not a new fact. It is a letter from a police officer who has accepted the stigma of retiring from the force and now wishes to try the officers who conducted the secret inquiry. The secret inquiry may have been right
    856
    or wrong, but it would certainly be wrong, having taken the course of holding that inquiry, to subject that inquiry to investigation by Committee. To take that course would prevent a secret Departmental inquiry being again held. [Nationalist cries of "Oh, oh!"] I cannot hope to satisfy hon. Members, and must be content to remain under the ban of their disapproval. The hon. Member has complained that there was a breach of faith in supporting the high sheriff in the custody of the Court-house vested in him; but if this is an accusation against the Government for having passed the Bill giving that authority, so is it against Members opposite who accepted it. Section 72, Subsection 3, of the Act declares that the Court-houses are to be given to the County Councils for the execution of their duty, and for no other purpose. Even on that narrow issue, the execution of their duty, there is an appeal to the Lord Lieutenant if the high sheriff thinks, that the other purpose for which the Court-house exists, the administration of justice, would be likely to be trenched upon by the duties of the County Council. This was accepted by hon. Members opposite, and clearly it was never contemplated that the Court-houses should be used for political demonstrations. No change has been made in the status of County Councils as successors to grand juries, and in 1867 a judicial decision declared that Court-houses are vested in the high sheriff. I cannot pass from this subject without paying a tribute to the-discretion and firmness displayed by Lord Bingham. I should like to note the terms in which Lord Bingham has been referred to by hon. Members. Lord Bingham, is an Irish gentleman who not many weeks ago walked into the office of the Congested Districts Board and, without being solicited, said he would be prepared the moment he was vested with control of his estate to sell it to the Board in order to effect some amelioration in the land system of the county in which he lived. Lord Bingham has done more to solve the land difficulty in Mayo than all the hon. Members opposite. As to the other points raised by the hon. Member, I have to say that it would be improper for me to review the action of the Land Judge or the slowness or speed with which the business of his court is conducted. If the special case brought forward has

    857
    been in the Court for many years, that does not prove that the case came within the fortieth section, but, having come within it, all the tenants agreed to an arrangement with the exception of three who refused to buy unless they acquired the sporting rights. They have never enjoyed the sporting rights; no tenant ever had. The House extended the credit of the Exchequer to assist tenants to acquire their farms, and because tenants are not to have shooting rights the transaction is not to go forward and the Court is to be held up to obloquy? The case needs no argument. If a remedy were needed it can be provided in the Bill which has been introduced.
    MR. ASQUITH: There is a passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which I cannot pass unnoticed, a sentence in which he alluded to the case of Sergeant Sheridan. The right hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension if he supposes the dissatisfaction with the course taken by His Majesty's Government, and with the reasons assigned for taking that course, is not shared by many other than Irish Members on this side, and, as I suspect, by not a few sitting opposite. What is the case the right hon. Gentleman has now once more laid before the House? In its present situation it is a most extraordinary case. Sheridan was, according to the right hon. Gentleman, a guilty man. Over and over again he has reiterated his belief in the man's guilt; and it must be assumed that when a responsible Minister made such a statement there were good grounds for it. If Sheridan was assumed to be guilty, in language not a whit too strong, in view of the nature of the crimes attributed to him, why, I ask again, was he not to be prosecuted? Sheridan was at large, but his whereabouts were known; he is said to be in a country with whose Government we have an extradition treaty, and undoubtedly there was primâ facie evidence that he had committed an extraditable offence. Why was not an effort, at least, made to bring Sheridan to justice? That is a question which I must put again and again until a satisfactory answer is returned. The Chief Secretary has spoken of the difficulty of securing legal proof of Sheridan's guilt. It seems that in the circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman has disclosed, there was sufficient material evidence to secure the conviction
    858
    of Sheridan. But, at any rate, in a matter which affects the very foundations of justice, it is better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all. Here is a man guilty of offences as fatal, not only to the administration of justice, but to all respect for law in Ireland as it is possible to conceive, walking about scot-free and unpunished. That is serious enough. But in addition to that there is the suspicion that the Government are afraid to bring Sheridan to trial, lest in the process of securing his conviction other disclosures should be made, which would throw a still more lurid and condemnatory light on the Irish administration. I believe these suspicions to be unfounded, but so long as the Government pursue the extraordinary course of allowing Sheridan to remain at large they will be rife in Ireland. I appeal once more to the Government, in the interest of public confidence in the just administration of the law in Ireland, to put into operation against this man, who, on their own showing, was guilty of the most nefarious crimes, the ordinary machinery of justice.
    *MR. WEIRcomplained that the Congested Districts Board of Scotland was remiss in carrying out one of the objects for which it was constituted—the assisted migration of crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. In the Island of Lewis there were 30,000 people, and the congestion was alarming. The Lord Advocate had said the Congested District Board was doing admirable work, but as a fact it did nothing at all until disturbances had occurred and the law defied. Not a single man, woman, or child had migrated in Lewis. All that the Board had done was to buy seven acres of land and divide it into twenty-eight quarter acre holdings.
    It being half-past seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this evening.

  EVENING SITTING.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPRO PRIATION) BILL.
    [SECOND READING.]
    Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6th August], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    MR. WEIR,continuing his speech, complained of the inaccuracy of the Deer Forest Returns, asserting that one forest of 75,000 acres was returned as containing only 35,000 acres. Surely steps ought to be taken to secure greater accuracy. On one occasion he appealed to the Secretary for Scotland to take action with regard to a farm in Rossshire which it was proposed to convert into deer forest. That farm formerly supported many a crofting family, and he suggested that instead of allowing it to be converted into a forest it should be acquired by the Congested Districts Board. The Secretary for Scotland on the 29th April last, said he knew nothing about the matter, and did not propose to make any inquiries! Was it fair to Members of the House that when they obtained information, and laid it before the Department, they should be thus treated? Surely they had a right to complain of such apathy and indifference on the part of the Scotch Office. The Congested Districts Board had £60,000 in hand for purposes such as this, but do not use it, and the consequence was that dissatisfaction and poverty were increasing in the Highland districts. He hoped that before long they would have a Secretary for Scotland with a seat in the House of Commons, so that they would be able to deal with him directly. He hoped, too, that in future the Lord Advocate would not charge him with "vague declamation" when he was bringing forward real cases of grievance. Again, in the matter of the suppression of illegal trawling the Department was guilty of a lack of energy. They had a few cruisers at their disposal, but they were seldom at sea, and too often remained in harbour. What use were they there? Take the case of Stornoway. When a cruiser visited that district, she was usually in harbour, where it was absolutely impossible for her to see the trawlers in Broad Bay which came there on their illegal errands, especially on Sunday. The cruisers, if they were to do any good, ought to be out of the harbour. Now the war was over there were a good many small vessels free which might
    860
    be usefully employed in watching the operations of trawlers, and he would suggest to the Scottish Office that it should make application to the Admiralty with a view to secure the services of additional cruisers. His complaint was that not enough trawlers were captured. The waters around Scotland, were simply infested with them. The British trawler was excluded—and rightly so—from the Moray Firth, but the law, unfortunately, allowed free access to the Firth of foreign trawlers. Some time ago, a number of Grimsby trawlers arranged to sail under the Norwegian flag, and they were now infesting the Moray Firth Had any steps been taken by the Scottish Office? for this was a matter of serious importance to the fishing industry. He thought they ought to have some information as to the Hydrographic Conference which sat at Christiania in 1901. Did that Conference do anything, or did the whole thing end in smoke? Again, he wanted some information as to the Copenhagen Conference, and what was done there. Did any of the foreign Powers subscribe to the cost of the North Sea Fisheries Scientific Investigations, or was Great Britain alone bearing: the burden? Next, there was the question of harbour accommodation. He had time after time appealed for the construction of more harbours. In 1891 a Parliamentary Commission was appointed for the purpose of inquiry into the harbour accommodation on the north and north-west coasts of Scotland. It reported that a suitable harbour of refuge might be constructed at Portnaguren, Island of Lewis, at a cost of £30,000, but nothing whatever had been done. Was it not the business of the Secretary for Scotland to make representations to the Treasury for funds to carry out these necessary works? A quarter of a million was readily voted for the support of the blacks in the West Indies. Why was not something done for the starving populations of the Highlands? What they wanted were larger harbours for the larger boats which are coming into use. He did hope that in the future the Scottish Office would display more energy in this matter. As to Ness Harbour, it was gradually silting up, and the fishing industry was being ruined. It was the duty of the Government to assist that industry, and to encourage the growth of the fishing population, for in the event of our being engaged in

    861
    naval warfare it would supply good recruits. Passing on to the Scottish Local Government Board, he complained that, contrary to law, parochial medical officers were appointed who did not hold the diploma of Public Health. An inquiry had been promised into the case of the Ben Nevis and Fort William observatories, but it was necessary to press matters forward, as those establishments were to be closed on October 1st for want of funds. Admirable work had been done at Ben Nevis, and he hoped funds would be provided so that it need not be closed. Travelling farther afield, he had to complain that, although the Kowloon hills in the New Territory were secured some years ago for the purpose of protecting Hong Kong, not a single gun had yet been put on them, and they were still unfortified. He would like some information as to the naval defence of Hong Kong, and also as to the hospital accommodation there for British soldiers. His final point was as to the hut tax in Rhodesia. Formerly it was 3s. per hut exclusive of the number of occupants, now it was 10s. per adult male, and he considered that the impost was too heavy and likely to lead to disturbances.
    MR. WYLIE: I should like to make a few remarks with reference to the new Commercial Treaty with China. The hon. Member for the Barnsley Division used his customary stereotyped phrases of disparagement of the action of the Government in connection with China, but the fact that our trade has very largely increased is, I think, sufficient proof that the policy has been a reasonable one. The Government has maintained the principle of the open door and have quite recently concluded a new Commercial Treaty, which I believe will be of the greatest benefit to this country. The treaty abolishes the Likin duties and I think that a step in the right direction. The hon. Member for Barnsley seems to be under the impression that the other Powers get special advantages over this country, but that is not so. These Likin duties have been a serious drawback to English trade with China, and I believe that their abolition has been cheaply purchased by the surtax of 6¾ per cent. The Foreign Office deserves the greatest credit for the action it has taken. It is also to be commended upon
    862
    the abolition of the sugar bounties, which lave exercised a very prejudicial effect, not only on the West Indies, but on the working men of this country, for they lave taken the bread out of the mouths of tens of thousands of families, and have rendered desolate and uncultivated normous tracts of laud in our West Indian dependencies. Successive Governments have endeavoured to get these bounties abolished, but they have feared wounding the susceptibilities of the so-called Free Traders. I am glad to see that better counsels have at last prevailed, that the present Government have taken the matter up in the most energetic fashion, and have arranged that the bounties shall cease in 1903. The credit for this must be shared with the Foreign Office by the Secretary of State for India, who in 1899 carried the Indian Tariff Act, which imposed a countervailing duty on sugar in our Indian dependencies. Continental countries knew that if we restored this weapon to our armoury, and applied it on a larger scale, the game was up. So long as we were able to resort to such practical measures, there was no danger of the re-imposition of these duties. In the debate on the West Indian subsidy, doubt was cast on the capacity of the West Indies to prosecute the sugar industry successfully. I think the success of the United States, where they are in possession of countervailing duties, proves the contrary. I believe that there is in store for the British West Indies, and for the workmen connected with the sugar-refining industry, and all trades relating thereto, a very bright future indeed. It is a great satisfaction to the people of this country that in two years the Foreign Office has been able to secure the abolition of the sugar bounties and of the likin in China. Both these reforms will confer the greatest benefits on the trade of this country and its dependencies.
    There is another matter, not connected with treaties, but closely connected with our comfort and convenience, to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the ventilation and sanitation of this House of Commons. It is a subject intimately connected with the health of each and all of us; and immediately before the Easter recess I called attention to the matter, and moved a Resolution that a Committee should be appointed to investigate the subject. That was assented

    863
    to by the First Commissioner of Works That Committee has been sitting for some time investigating the subject, and I believe that the result of its inquiries will end in much practical good. The practical suggestions which I made in the Easter recess have not been attended to "but in the interval between now and the Autumn some of these matters might be carried out. The atmosphere of the House under the present circumstances with the windows open above us, is not seriously incommoded with microbes; but when there is a large attendance, the air becomes very much deteriorated, and when you ascend to the Press gallery it is worse, and in the ladies' gallery still worse. In October the windows will be closed. I suggested that there should be electric fans, which would improve the.-air in all parts of the House. The library and dining-room would be much better for the same treatment. But it is not so much to the condition of the House itself that I desire to call attention as to certain sanitary arrangements attached to the House. I have no hesitation in saying that if Parliament was subject to the Factory Acts one of the first duties of an inspector would be to see that the House of Commons was placed in a proper condition in respect of its sanitary arrangements. Bacteria, so detrimental to the health of hon. Members, could be destroyed by a plentiful supply of fresh air. Occasionally the House is subject to stormy gusts of passion, and, according to the science of bacteriology, this is due to deleterious and defective material surroundings. By better means of ventilation, the temper of the House would be so improved that the new Rules of Procedure as to apology and suspension would be rendered superfluous.
    MR. M'KENNA: I desire to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the Report of the Committee on Military Education, which contains a general condemnation of the system of education now prevailing at Sandhurst. I should not have found it necessary to trouble the House this evening but for the fact that it has been, in my opinion, shown that there is no intention on the part of the Government to take action upon this Report. It appears to me that there were two reasonable courses which might have been taken by the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of
    864
    State might have suppressed the Report on the ground that he disagreed with it or because he considered the conditions did not admit of his acting upon it, or he might have published the Report and have acted upon it. That he should take the third course of publishing the Report and not acting upon it, appears to me to be an action that is not reasonable, and which I think I shall show the House is not the course that should have been taken on a Report of this kind. By publishing the Report and not acting upon it, the charges contained in it are reduced to the level of mere gossip. But these charges destroy the discipline of the military colleges, which become extremely onerous to the persons incriminated, and incapacitate them from doing their work, and bring our system of military education into disrepute. This is not the only instance in which this policy has been followed. There have been indications before that the action of the present Secretary of State for War tended to stir up all things in the War Office, and reform nothing. The right hon. Gentleman has brought before the House, on more than one occasion, several reforms, but they have not been followed by persistent or consistent action with a view to giving them effect. What was the charge alleged in the Report of the Committee with reference to military education? With regard to Woolwich the Report was fairly satisfactory, but with reference to Sandhurst the condemnation was complete. The Report states on page 2—
    "In the course of their investigations, the Committee have been impressed by the widespread dissatisfaction—a feeling expressed by practically all the witnesses—with the present state of education, both military and general, among the officers of the Army as a class."
    That is a general summary of the conclusions of the Committee. We are told that there was no inducement to work, and that, in consequence, the students did not work; that there was no inducement to instruct, and that consequently the instructors did not instruct. On page 28 the Committee sate that the evidence laid before them brought out in the strongest light the grave fact that the military education of junior officers in the Army was in a

    865
    most unsatisfactory condition. It is further stated—
    "The witnesses are unanimous in stating that the junior officers are lamentably wanting in military knowledge, and, what is perhaps even worse, in the desire to acquire knowledge and in the zeal for the military art. The Committee have been informed on very high authority that the majority of young officers will not work unless compelled; that "keenness is out of fashion"; that it is not the correct form; the spirit of fashion is rather not to show keenness; and that the idea is, to put it ill a few words, to do as little as they possibly can."
    There could be no stronger condemnation of the system of education at Sandhurst than that. The Committee proceed—
    "By no part of the evidence laid before them have the Committee been more impressed than by that which shows in the clearest manner the prevalence among the junior commissioned ranks of a lack of technical knowledge and skill, and of any wish to study the science and master the art of their profession."
    We cannot be surprised at the recent episode which occurred at Windsor, when we are told by a responsible Committee, in language such as I have quoted, that the system of education at Sandhurst cannot be too severely condemned. In view of that Report, it would have been expected that the Secretary of State for War would have assured the House that it was the immediate intention of the War Office to reform that system, and that the recommendations of the Committee would be acted on. What I have quoted refers perhaps, more to what may be described as hook learning at Sandhurst, than to practical work; but the Report also states that practical work, such as training in musketry and revolver practice, and riding, has as little opportunity for education given to it as the other branches of educational work. There is in the Report the extraordinary statement that even for candidates for the cavalry branch, only thirty-nine hours a year on the average is given to practising riding, and that, in spite of the fact that not more than a fifth of the students had even ridden before they entered the College. It is, therefore, expected that for four-fifths of the students, thirty-nine hours practice in the year is sufficient to enable them to learn the art of riding and the management of horses under fire. That is only one of many illustrations in detail of the evil methods pursued at Sandhurst.
    The Report of the Committee contains many suggestions. I will only refer to
    866
    one or two, because they have a direct bearing on the work of public schools in the country. There is in most schools a class which specially prepares boys for Woolwich or Sandhurst, and all these schools have to alter their syllabus in order to meet the requirements which, for the time being, exist at the military colleges; and they are waiting to see whether the Secretary of State will adopt the recommendations of this Committee. That Committee suggested, that the number of subjects of examination should be reduced; that the examinations for Sandhurst, Woolwich, and the Militia should be amalgamated; that the age should be raised; that Woolwich and Sandhurst should be enlarged: and that the course at Sandhurst should be extended from one to two years. Each of these recommendations vitally affects the action of the schools. This Report is flung at their heads, and they are uncertain as to what is going to happen. Not only the military colleges, but the schools throughout the country are, therefore, concerned. I would ask the Secretary of State to give the House some definite assurance that it is his intention, having published the Report, to act upon it, and to give immediate effect to the recommendations which have been made.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The hon. Member has touched upon a very important subject in rather a controversial manner. I do not in the least complain of the hon. Member's bringing before the House the Report of the Military Education Committee. Although that Report took the Committee many months to consider and to compose, the hon. Member falls foul of me because, that Report having been presented in March last, I have not already pronounced judgment upon it. I have no apology to make for that. I am not going, at the bidding of the hon. Member, to deal with a subject that vitally affects the whole future of the Army, and which may change the whole system of education which has existed in the Army during the last thirty or forty years, merely because, in the opinion of the hon. Member, it reflects on my character that I have not in a few weeks come to the conclusion to make drastic changes. I

    867
    cannot imagine anything which would have a worse effect on education in the Army than, without deliberation, to decide matters of such grave importance as those touched upon in this Report. When we consider the question of the education of officers of the Army, we have a great deal to consider besides the mere system as it stands. There have been great changes in the habits of the class who enter the Army in this country. There has been enormous progress in the education of that class. In one respect alone there is a very important item which, I suppose, has not occurred to the hon. Member. As regards the various classes of officers who are involved in this Report, it is essential that we should know, not merely what is the opinion at which people may arrive as to their qualifications, but that we should know from those who are best qualified to judge what has been the experience with regard to the different classes of officers who have entered the Army either through Sandhurst, through Woolwich, through the Militia, or through other channels. I have had the advantage only within the last few days of seeing Lord Kitchener and obtaining his judgment upon some of these points. I think a Secretary of State would he gravely wanting who proceeded to devise a totally new course of education, to lay down totally new views as to what should be the system of promotion, and to what extent it should be left in the hands of the colonels and regimental authorities, or should be guided by examinations from without, without taking the opinion of the officer, who of all men in the British Army at this moment, having served as chief of the staff of an army of 240,000 men, and subsequently for a year and a half as Commander-in-Chief of an army in the field of the same number, was peculiarly qualified to give guidance on the subject. I should be gravely wanting in my duty if I had neglected to obtain that guidance which can be better secured from active service in the field than from the deliberation of any Committee, however excellent that Committee may be. Personally I have felt that among all the grave questions which have come before mo since I took office there is none which so seriously affects the character of the British Army as that which materially concerns the class of officers to be obtained.
    868
    A great deal has been said in regard to Sandhurst. I admit that the opinion expressed by the Committee on the subject is one which leaves it very little open to us to form a different judgment. As a matter of fact, both Lord Roberts and I have formed a judgment with regard to Sandhurst. The hon. Member speaks as if the Government were to blame because they did not immediately reform Sandhurst in the middle of the term. I quite admit that, in the interval, events have occurred which justify the strictures passed by the Committee on the state of Sandhurst. I do not wish to enter into that unfortunate series of events, except to say that there was one point beyond controversy, and that was that four or five deliberate cases of fire occurred in the cadets' quarters, and that the state of discipline, or, I would rather say, of feeling, at the college was not such as to cause the cadets heartily to co-operate with the authorities in endeavouring to discover the origin of those fires. That, I think, justified the Commander-in-Chief in feeling that very severe measures ought to be taken in order to make men who were about to become officers of the British Army understand that they had a collective responsibility in taking care that such scandals did not take place in their midst without every effort being made on their part to discover the offenders. I hope that what the Commander-in-Chief has done has been effectual in that respect. At all events, we have been able to clear the great majority of those concerned, and, by means of these strong measures, to bring very closely home to others these unfortunate occurrences.
    The hon. Member speaks as if I had been endeavouring to avoid speaking on this matter. I have never been asked before to give my opinion, and Members on this side, who realised the difficulties of the position, have been anxious not to force the Government to a premature decision. I fully realise that a very great change must be made in the organisation of Sandhurst. The Governor, some time ago, intimated his desire to retire from the command at Sandhurst. We shall begin the new term with a fresh Governor and a fresh second in command, and we shall also make considerable changes in the method of administration. But as to the actual educational changes necessary,

    869
    there are great divergences of opinion, and I am carefully weighing the question. I have had a number of personal interviews with those chiefly concerned, and I think one thing is clear, viz., that, as a number of cadets have gone through a certain course with a view to a certain examination, we cannot make any sudden changes in regard to them, and, for the next examination at all events, we must proceed on the old lines. It is a matter for consideration whether, even in the following examination, we ought not, in justice to the cadets, to proceed on the same lines; but, following upon that, there will be a great change. We are determined to make the education practical. I appeal to the House not to press us to give a premature decision on matters which require a really mature consideration. I make no apology for not having yet acted. This Report was signed four months ago. At that time we were actively carrying on the war, and were also engaged on the terms of peace. We have had since then to demobilise an army of nearly 250,000 men, and have had to pay attention to a variety of other matters of enormous importance. This question of the education of the Army is mixed up with a number of other subjects, such as the
    difficulty of getting a sufficient number of officers, and the question of the expense of living in the Army. These matters must be dealt with pari passu. It is not the slightest use opening the doors to men of good education, if at the same time the profession is not one which they would find it worth their while to pursue. There is also the question of how far we can, not merely through Sandhurst and Woolwich, but through the Universities and other seats of learning, obtain the men we require without unduly pressing them on the question of ago. Sufficient time must be granted for the consideration of all these questions, but I will undertake that nothing shall be wanting in thoroughness and completeness in the decisions at which we arrive.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYrose to continue the discussion, when
    MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    (10.8.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 379.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

    Fison, Frederick William

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William Cecil,

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Flower, Ernest

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Chapman, Edward

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Charrington, Spencer

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

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Balcarres, Lord

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

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

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Gore, Hn. G. R. G. Ormsby- (Salop

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Cranborne, Lord

    Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Groves, James Grimble

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Cross, Herb, Shepherd(Bolton)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Beresford, Lord Charles William

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

    Bigwood, James

    Denny, Colonel

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Bill, Charles

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Bond, Edward

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Henderson, Sir Alexander

    Brown, Alexander II. (Shropsh.

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

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

    Bull, William James

    Finch, George H.

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Butcher, John George

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Spear, John Ward

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

    Stroyan, John

    Keswick, William

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Knowles, Lees

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm Edw. M.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Penn, John

    Valentia, Viscount

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Webb, Colonel William George

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

    Purvis, Robert

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

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Randles, John S.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

    Rankin, Sir James

    Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm.

    Macartney, Rt. Hn. W.G. Ellison

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Malcolm, Ian

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Wylie, Alexander

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Maxwell, W. J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

    Rutherford, John

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Milvain, Thomas

    Seely, Maj. J.E. B. (Isle of Wight

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Edwards, Frank

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Elibank, Master of

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Ambrose, Robert

    Emmott, Alfred

    Levy, Maurice

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

    Lough, Thomas

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lundon, W.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Flynn, James Christopher

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Brigg, John

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    M'Crae, George

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    M' Govern, T.

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Gilhooly, James

    M' Kenna, Reginald

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Grant, Corrie

    M' Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Mather, Sir William

    Caldwell, James

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Mooney, John J.

    Cameron, Robert

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Harwood, George

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Murnaghan, George

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Murphy, John

    Crean, Eugene

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Cullinan, J.

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Norman, Henry

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

    Delany, William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Kitson, Sir James

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

    Dillon, John

    Langley, Batty

    O'Malley, William

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Dunn, Sir William

    Leamy, Edmund

    Perks, Robert William

    872

    873

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

    Price, Robert John

    Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Rea, Russell

    Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N

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

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

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

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Tomkinson, James

    Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

    Roche, John

    Toulmin, George

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Tully. Jasper

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Mr. Causton and Mr. John

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Weir, James Galloway

    Sinclair.

    Sullivan, Donal

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Bill read a second time, and committed for tomorrow.

    EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
    Considered in Committee—
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
    Clause 7:—
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 39, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words, 'shall, where the local education authority are the council of a county, have a body of managers consisting of a number of managers not exceeding four appointed by that council, together with a number not exceeding two appointed by the minor local authority. Where the local education authority are the council of a borough or urban district, they may, if they think fit, appoint for any school provided by them such number of managers as they may determine.
    '(2.) All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall, in place of the existing managers, have a body of managers consisting of a number of foundation managers not exceeding four appointed as provided by this Act, together with a number of managers not exceeding two appointed (a) where the local education authority are the council of a county, one by that council and one by the minor local authority; and (b) where the local education authority are the council of a borough or urban district, both by that authority.
    (3.) One of the managers appointed by the minor local authority, or the manager so appointed, as the case may be, shall be the parent of a child who is or has been during the last twelve months a scholar in the school.
    (4.) The "minor local authority" means the council of any borough or urban district, or the parish council or (where there is no parish council) the parish meeting of any parish, which appears to the County Council to be served by the school. Where the school appears to the
    874
    County Council to serve the area of move than one minor local authority the County Council shall make such provision as they think proper for joint appointment by the authorities concerned.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the Member for East Northamptonshire has already been disposed of.
    MR. CORRIEGRANTsaid the Amendment he had to propose provided that the foundation managers should be selected by the local education authority from amongst the managers appointed by the trust deed of the school. One might assume that in most cases those managers would be members of the Church of England, but this Amendment would give some opportunity to the local education authority of securing on the working body of managers men who had some sympathy with education as well as a desire to secure denominational teaching.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—
    "In lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'appointed as provided by this Act,' and insert the words 'selected by the local education authority from amongst the managers appointed by the trust deed of the school.' "—(Mr. Corrie Grant.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'appointed' stand part of the proposed Amendment, as amended. "
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Amendment of the hon. Member raised the question whether they should or should not provide machinery by which four denominational managers were to be selected. The hon. Member thought that this was a proper time to deal with

    875
    it, and that it was consistent with the general scheme of the Clause as they were providing the machinery by which the two elected managers were to be placed upon the board of management, so they ought in this Clause to provide machinery by which the denominational managers were to be provided. This was an Amendment convenient in neither form nor substance at that stage. There were many voluntary schools in which there were no trust deeds. In the case of these schools the proposal would be inapplicable and irrelevant, and some other provision would be required for the cases where there were no. trust deeds. By the hon. Member's suggestion four persons were to be selected by the local education authority from amongst the managers appointed by the trust deed; but not only might there be no persons appointed by the trust deed, but where there were persons so appointed they might be fewer than four, so that in neither eventuality would the scheme furnish a way out of the difficulty. It seemed clear that the proper course to adopt was that which the Government recommended, which was to lay down clearly in this Clause that there should be four foundation managers, and to leave the machinery of their election or selection to a separate Clause. He was convinced that if they attempted to deal in one Clause with a question which, though simple in principle, was largely complicated by the great variety of the trust deeds where they existed, and by their absence in many cases where they ought to exist, but did not, they would only load themselves with hopeless controversies and lose sight of the fundamental, essential, and central principle of the Clause. This was simply to lay down that out of those six managers, increased as they might be by subsequent Amendment on the part of the Government, which they were prepared to accept, there should be a proportion of four foundation managers representing the denomination to which the school belonged to two selected by a popular vote. That was the essential principle of the Clause, and that was what they were driving at, and he was sure that they would only complicate the discussion by introducing an elaborate arrangement such as that which had been suggested. This question was too complicated to be
    876
    dealt with in this Clause, and he hoped the Committee would agree to defer this question to a later stage of the Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that the right hon. Gentleman could not avail himself now of the argument that his fundamental principle was to respect the trust deed. The Committee had hitherto been told that to depart from the trust would be an act of spoliation, but what did they find in the last Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had put down? That the trusts were nothing at all. They were to be set aside if they did not happen to suit the framework of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's new Amendment began by saying that the trust managers of the school shall be managers appointed under the provisions of the trust deed of the school. That did seem to respect the trust. But supposing the trust contemplated only the parson and the curate as school managers, they would not amount to four, and, although in such cases the trust deed of the founder desired the management to be exclusively clerical, the Amendment then would sot aside this intention.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Which Amendment?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Amendment you have put down.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not what we are on now.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid it was not, but it had been ruled over and over again that they could not put the words "as provided by this Act" into a Clause, unless they had before them and could consider what was to be subsequently provided. He was entitled to consider what the subsequent provision was which the Government undertook to put into the Bill, and he said that this subsequent provision was a provision which set aside the trust altogether and left it to the Education Department to frame denominational trusts which had not been trained by the founders of the school. To devolve on the Education, Department in the absence of trusts the duty of framing a new trust was, from

    877
    the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, a most objectionable thing, because he had always maintained that they must respect the denominational founders' wishes; and yet they had here a whole series of provisions relating to four managers, in which the original trust might be set aside altogether. He indicated who are to be the managers, how they are to be constituted, and said that "if the provisions of the trust deeds as to the appointment of managers are in any respect inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, or insufficient or inapplicable for the purpose, or that there is no such trust deed available, the Board of Education shall make an order under this section for the purpose of meeting the case." Therefore there might be no trust deed at all; there might be trust deeds which contemplated something different from what the Government contemplated. The Education Department was to frame a trust deed to alter the trust deed where there was one. Therefore the view of respect for the trust deed entirely disappeared. They did not respect the trust deed at all. The Committee could not consider the provision of these four managers without considering in what manner they were to be provided.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not the Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOUTsaid it was the Amendment which the First Lord of the Treasury was going to put into the Bill under the words "as subsequently provided in this Act." They could not say that they were going to have four gentlemen subsequently provided without considering how they were to be provided. Therefore before they parted with those four persons they ought to consider upon what principle and upon what grounds these four persons were to take part in the management.
    MR. LLOYD GEORGEsaid it was a pity the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to accept substantially the principle laid down in his hon. friend's Amendment. All the First Lord wanted was that the denominational character of the schools should be guaranteed, and
    878
    therefore they would discuss the question from that standpoint. Granted that the denominational character of the schools was guaranteed, he thought the education authority ought to have some right of selection amongst the persons who were suggested. After all, these were the men who had to administer the funds placed at the disposal of the managers, and he thought the education authority ought to have some control over the personnel of the managing body. With regard to the four managers, the Prime Minister provided that the whole of the machinery for the election of managers should be postponed to a subsequent Clause. They had got elaborate machinery for the election of the four, but when they came to the election of the minority of the same body the right hon. Gentleman proposed to set up other machinery. Why should he not introduce the machinery of which he had given notice after Clause 15 into Clause 7, for it would be perfectly logical, or else take the other alternative and eliminate all questions of machinery altogether from this Clause. The whole machinery should be dealt with in a different clause. He submitted that it was bad drafting. He trusted the Prime Minister would see his way to eliminate all questions of machinery from this clause, so that the Committee might go on to discuss the matters of real principle laid down in the Clause.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid that he had on the Paper an Amendment which raised the point now before the Committee in a slightly different way. The object in both cases was very much the same, namely, that while the denominational character of the school and the appointment of the managers under trustees should be maintained, there should be some association of the education authority with the view to the salient fact which ought to govern the whole of these considerations, namely, that they had to provide one body of managers not merely for the denominational interest in the school, but for the whole educational machinery of the school. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might very well consider the adoption of one or other of the suggestions made with the view of covering this point. He did not think the Committee knew from

    879
    anything that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman whether these managers when appointed would be responsible in the same sense as the managers appointed under the first subsection were responsible to the education authority.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, according to his view, the Committee were at this moment engaged more on a question of form than on a question of substance. On the question of form, he earnestly pressed on the Committee the consideration that it was hopeless to endeavour to discuss a subsequent clause in the Bill upon this clause. The Government had put down a new clause, which dealt with the machinery by which the four denominational or foundation managers were to be selected. That was a difficult and complicated matter, not because the principle underlying it was difficult or doubtful, but because the variety of trustees in many cases, and the absence of trustees in other cases, made certain complicated provisions necessary. The suggestion which had been made was that the Committee should endeavour on this Clause, which dealt with principles and not with details, to discuss a question of detail and not of principle. It had been said that if they insisted that all machinery for dealing with the four foundation managers was to be placed in a subsequent Clause, by what logical process did they attempt to force down their throats the machinery for dealing with the two non-foundation managers? He thought he could offer some justification for that policy, but he admitted that there was a discrepancy of treatment; and that, while they did attempt to eliminate from this Clause all machinery dealing with the foundation managers, they did attempt to introduce machinery dealing with the elected managers. That was possibly illogical and inconsistent from a drafting point of view. What they wanted the Committee to do was to come to an issue not on details, but upon principle. What they wanted to decide was whether or not they were to lay down the broad principle that the denominational or foundation managers should be as four compared with the elected managers, who were to be two. That was the essence of the Clause; everything else was machinery, and if he had any reason to believe that they could come to an issue upon the substance of
    880
    the Clause and defer the discussion of machinery to a later date he should regard that as perfectly consistent with the Government plan. If it really would meet the convenience of Gentlemen on both sides that that should be fought out fairly with reasonable discussion at a reasonable hour before the natural rising of the House, he, for his own part, would not stick out upon a drafting point. He should not endeavour to thrust upon the House his own views as to the actual mode in which the Clause should be drawn. He should be quite prepared to accept any arrangement by which they would be able to carry on in a reasonably and relatively concise manner a debate upon what was, after all, apart from machinery, the real issue between them. He did not know whether that suggestion, made in the interests, not indeed of peace but of interesting debate, and of bringing before the House and the country the real issues of the Bill, would be acceptable. Hon. Gentlemen might think they could not have a better cry with which to go to the country than this inequality of management. They on their side might take the view that, looking to the whole framework of the Bill, this was the only just and possible method of arriving at a national system of education. Those were the two opposing points of view, and if it would conduce to having these fought out to a clear issue on the present occasion, he should be content to drop the question of machinery and have that issue fairly debated and divided upon.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that if he understood the Prime Minister's suggestion, it was that when they arrived at a certain point in the Clause the right hon. Gentleman should propose that they should relegate all questions of machinery to a later stage. That was for the right hon. Gentleman to settle, but he did not think it made any difference to the substantial question with which they had to deal. He considered that they were entitled to some further declaration from the right hon. Gentleman as to what he meant before they parted with the Clause. He hoped the Committee would see that they were entitled to know what the relation of the foundation managers in non-provided schools was to be to those appointed by the local authority, and whether the

    881
    local education authority was to have the power of removing them from time to time.
    MR BOUSFIELDthought a great many Members on both sides of the House would be glad to fall in with the suggestion of the Prime Minister. He understood that the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to defer discussion to a later period of the year. He did not know exactly what advantage they hoped to gain, but what the Prime Minister had said would, to a certain extent, have that effect. If the suggestion was adopted, the Committee would settle a question of principle, and go into detail in the autumn, lie would suggest that the Committee would be carrying out the view of the right hon. Gentleman if they accepted the Amendment which had been proposed and in-inserted after the word "appointed" the words "as hereinafter provided."
    SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to be that the Committee should decide as a matter of principle whether, in future, in schools not provided by the local authority, four managers should be provided by the foundation and two by the local authority.
    SIR EDWARD GREYagreed that it was unsatisfactory that they should deal with a question of principle and a question of machinery at the same time, and he would ask the First Lord whether he could not adopt the suggestion first made from his own side of the House by the hon. Member for North Hackney.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought there was force in the objection of the hon. Member for Carnarvon that it was not desirable to leave the machinery for appointing the foundation managers to stand over while they defined the machinery by which the managers were to be appointed by the local authority. He believed that if the discussion were confined to the mere question of the proportion of representation, it would not only diminish debate, but also modify—he would not say the acrimonious—but the severe character of the discussion which had taken place during the last ten days.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he desired to know particularly from the right hon. Gentleman what was to happen with regard to a school where there were no trustees now. Was the Board of Education to be empowered to appoint trustees? He wanted very much to know whether in the case of schools where there were trustees, these trustees were to be allowed freedom to appoint the managers in years to come. And was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that where there were no trustees, trustees were to be fixed at the will of the Board of Education?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to have in his mind a special case in which a man had built a school. He quite admitted that in such a case the builder of the school was the owner. Surely the interpretation of the hon. Gentlemen and other hon. Members showed how very inconvenient the present method of discussion was. He again suggested that the discussion of all details with respect to trustees and the management of schools which had not trustees should be deferred until the Clause dealing with them was reached. For his part he was perfectly willing to fall in with any arrangement by which all discussions on machinery would be deferred and the attention of the Committee concentrated, in the time now at their disposal, on the main question of principle, and that there should not be deviations into less important points. That being the view, as he gathered it from speeches on both sides, he believed the proper way to do it was to cut out all the words after "two" in line 11, and to put in the words "representing local authorities also as appointed by this Act." The Subsection would then run as follows—
    "All public elementary schools not provided by the local education authority shall, in place of the existing managers, have a body of managers consisting of a number of foundation managers not exceeding four, as provided by this Act, together with a number of managers not exceeding two representing the local authority, also appointed as provided by this Act."
    The result of that would be to put the two classes of managers absolutely on an equality so far as drafting was concerned, and would leave for future discussion the machinery by which these classes were to be appointed. Then all that would

    883
    be necessary would be to safeguard the question of the grouping of schools and also the question of the extension of six to some larger number to meet particular cases, but still keeping the joint proportion which had been laid down by the rest of the Clause. These two principles must be safeguarded, and he thought it would be easy to safeguard them. With that qualification he thought it would be easy to discuss the whole principle of this Clause with the changes he had suggested. If the House considered that that would conduce to the clearness and decisiveness of the debates, he for his part should be glad to fall in with their view.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that what the right hon. Gentleman said amounted to this that they should determine the question for or against two, and let the manner in which they were to be appointed be determined hereafter. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to pass this Clause without telling the Committee or the country what was essential to the Clause itself. The right hon. Gentleman ought to say that he would not ask the House to pass the Clause as a whole until he had dealt with the manner of the appointment of the four and the two respectively. The right hon. Gentleman said it might be necessary to increase the number of managers beyond six. They wanted to know in what proportion they were to be increased.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the right hon. Gentleman quite misunderstood him. When he said he wanted to safeguard the principle of increasing the six to a higher number he had in his mind an Amendment in the name of an hon. friend which proposed that where the circumstances of a school required it the number of managers should be increased, but the proportion between the denominational and the non-denominational
    managers should remain the same. That, therefore, did not touch the question of machinery. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the Bill in divisions; they could not discuss ambiguities. The Government put their cards on the table and said quite plainly and openly what they meant.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the right hon. Gentleman stated that the principle of the Bill was to give four denominational managers, but he had not said so in the Bill. ["Oh, oh."] What was put first was trusts, and then foundations, but the Government had not put "denominational" in the Bill.
    MR. A, J. BALFOUR: I did not put "denominational" in, not because I was afraid of the term, but because there are voluntary schools which are not denominational.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid then it depended on the word "trust," and therefore he insisted again that the Amendment was one to give power to the Education Department to set aside the trust. If the foundation of the Bill was not denominational, but trust, how was it that the Government did not determine now how to deal with the trust? The Amendment would enable the Education Department to deal with the old trust and to create a new trust. He did not see how the Committee could deal that evening with the question of four and two managers. The Committee could not dispose of Clause 7 until the Government had explained how they meant to deal with the trusts.
    (11.23.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 235: Noes, 101. (Division List No. 380.)

    AYES.

    Abraham. William (Cork, N. E.)

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Bigwood, James

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Bill, Charles

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Bond, Edward

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Balcarres, Lord

    Beresford, Lord Charles William

    Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

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

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Bull, William James

    Butcher, John George

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    O'Malley, William

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Carew, James Laurence

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Henderson, Sir Alexander

    Plummet, Walter R.

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset. E

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Chapman, Edward

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Clive, Captain Percy A

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Purvis, Robert

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

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Pym, C. Guy

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Randles, John S.

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Jameson. Major J. Eustace

    Rankin, Sir James

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Keswick, William

    Robertson. Herbert (Hackney)

    Cranborne, Lord

    Knowles, Lees

    Roche, John

    Crean, Eugene

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Law. Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Cullinan, J.

    Lawrence. Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Rutherford, John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Sackville. Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Scott. Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Delany, William

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Denny, Colonel

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

    Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

    Dillon, John

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

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

    Doogan, P. C.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Spear, John Ward

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lundon, W.

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

    Stroyan, John

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sullivan, Donal

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

    M' Arthur. Charles (Liverpool)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Finch, George H.

    M' Govern, T.

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

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    M' Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Fison, Frederick William

    Malcolm, Ian

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Flannery. Sir Fortescue

    Manners. Lord Cecil

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

    Tully, Jasper

    Flower, Ernest

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Valentia, Viscount

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

    Milvain, Thomas

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Gardner, Ernest

    Montagu. G. (Huntingdon)

    Webb, Colonel William George

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

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Mooney, John J.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Cordon. J. (Londonderry. S.)

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

    Gore, Hn G. H. C. Ormsby- (Salop

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Mount. William Arthur

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Murnaghan, George

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

    Murphy, John

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

    Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.

    Groves, James Grimble

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Nicholson. William Graham

    Wylie, Alexander

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

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

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent. Ashford

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sir William Walrond and

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Bell, Richard

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Brigg, John

    886

    887

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Rea, Russell

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Burns, John

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Caldwell, James

    Joicey, Sir James

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Cameron, Robert

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

    Shackleton, David James

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Kitson, Sir James

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Langley, Batty

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cremer, William Randal

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

    Levy, Maurice

    Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Tomkinson, James

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lloyd-George, David

    Toulmin, George

    Edwards, Frank

    Lough, Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Elibank, Master of

    M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Emmott, Alfred

    M' Crae, George

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

    M' Kenna, Reginald

    Weir, James Galloway

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    M' Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

    Mather, Sir William

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Norman, Henry

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

    Harwood, George

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Paulton, James Mellor

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Mr. Corrie Grant and Mr.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Price, Robert John

    Charles Morley.

    Lords Amendment, agreed to.

    *THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will not read, because a third of four is not a possible number. The second Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire is in order.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid his Amendment was to insert after "Act" the words "and removable by the education authority." The point of the Amendment was perfectly simple. It concerned the relations of the managers of denominational schools to the education authority, and it was a point which required a thorough elucidation. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman sincerely intended the Bill to be an educational measure, and that he also sincerely intended that the voluntary, as well as the provided schools, should be brought into one coherent and coordinate system; that there should be an equal standard of efficiency throughout; and that both classes of schools should be brought into educational relations with each other. But it was extraordinary that during all these discussions, so far there had been no declaration as to the position of managers of these schools, though it was repeatedly stated that the managers of the provided
    888
    schools should be the creatures of the education authority. It seemed to him essential that the status of managers of denominational schools should not be of a wholly different character from the status of managers of provided schools. If they were to have one system carried out rationally and coherently, the position of the managers of the denominational schools should be similar to that of the managers of provided schools. It was stated in Clause 8 that the local education authority should have complete control over the secular instruction carried out in the schools; but he did not think that that really touched the point he had in view. According to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the managers of the schools provided by the local authority were to have exactly the same status as managers appointed by a School Board under Section 15 of the Act of 1870. What he now asked was that they should adopt the same principle, mutatis mutandis if necessary, with reference to the managers of denominational schools. Were they to be removable by the education authority or not? As far as he understood it, Clause 8 provided that where a dispute arose between the education authority and the managers of a denominational

    889
    school on a question affecting secular instruction, it was to be referred to the Board of Education. He wished to know if the managers of denominational schools were to remain as a sort of minor autonomous authority, and occupy a position which would enable them to defy the education authorities. The Amendment raised a very serious and important question in a very definite and concrete form. It provided that substantially the managers of denominational schools should be subject to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1870, and should therefore be removable by the local education authorities.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, as amended—
    "In line 11, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'and removable by the local education authority.' "—(Mr. Channing.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was quite clear that it would be impossible for the Government to allow the local education authority to have the power of dismissing managers of denominational schools. That might be right or wrong, but it was an essential part of the principle of the Clause. Denominational managers were after all a quantity that could be exhausted, and the education authority would only have to go through the simple process of dismissing them all in certain localities where the number of eligible denominational managers might be limited, and the schools would cease to be denominational. The principle of the Clause was that denominational managers were not to be under the control of the education authority so far as their own functions were concerned; but so far as secular education was concerned, they would not be able to violate the wishes, run counter to the policy, or interfere with the schemes of the local education authority. The one was equally as fundamental a principle of the Bill as the other and if the hon. Gentleman did not think that the latter was carried out by the Clause already passed, he thought it would be possible to frame words which would make it even clearer still. It should, however, be understood that it
    890
    was their view of the Bill that the education authority was to be supreme in all matters of secular education, but that they could not have the power of dismissing denominational managers, because that would carry with it the logical consequence that they would not only be supreme in secular education, but in religious education also. That was not the principle of the Bill; and it would, therefore, be clearly impossible to accept the Amendment.
    MR. ROBSONsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to carry his point further, and explain low, if the local education authority were to be supreme in all matters of secular education, it could enforce that supremacy when it had no power to appoint or dismiss either managers or teachers.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it would have the power to veto the appointment of teachers.
    MR. ROBSONsaid it would have no power either to appoint or dismiss teachers. It would have the power to veto the appointment of teachers on educational grounds if they could be defined, and it had the power to appeal to the Board of Education to dismiss, teachers, also on educational grounds; but it had no power to appoint teachers, and no power to dismiss teachers.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought it would have that power.
    MR. ROBSONsaid that it would not have power to dismiss teachers except in a qualified way. How then was it to enforce its will with regard to the management of secular education. It was now clear, as indeed it had been clear all along, that the phrase in the Bill giving the local education authority the management of secular education was a mere phrase put in with a political object. It was not a phrase by any means inserted in order to facilitate education, but simply and solely for the purpose of facilitating the platform defence of the Bill.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid he did not know where the Prime Minister found in the Bill that the local education authority had power to dismiss teachers.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought that power was in the Bill.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid it was satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman understood that, and would make it definite.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he had always stated that the policy of the Government was that in secular matters there should be a veto on the appointment of teachers and the power of dismissal.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid if that was necessary in the case of teachers in order to give control, why should it not also be given in the case of managers whose action, by the Bill as it stood, was entirely uncontrolled by the education authority. The control provided by the Bill was a sham. Supposing the managers of a school refused to dismiss a teacher they had been ordered to dismiss by the local authority, or supposing they insisted on appointing a teacher they were told not to appoint, or supposing they refused to use a particular school syllabus, or a certain school book, how were they to be compelled to obey the local authority There was no means provided in the Bill except by refusing grants; and if they refused grants they would not be able to keep the school up to its proper efficiency and another school might have to be provided in the district. That was a nice prospect for the ratepayers, and was an alternative too monstrous to maintain. He ventured to think that when they came to discuss the clause which provided that alternative schools might be built the right hon. Gentleman would find that there would be a very great deal of objection to building up in the villages a series of religious schools to suit different sects. Therefore, he maintained that some means should be found by which the local authority should have control over recalcitrant managers.
    * MR. DUKEsaid the spirit of the discussion which had followed the attempt of the Prime Minister to introduce concord into the proceedings gave the Committee an indication of what they might expect during the next few sittings. They might expect a strong
    892
    partisan discussion upon matters on which partisanship should be out of the question. It was easy for hon. Members opposite to talk about the hardship to the ratepayers and taxpayers of providing here and there a new school, but it did not occur to those hon. Members that the only alternative to this Bill would be to provide thousands of new schools. One main object of the Bill was to prevent the necessity of the taxpayers and ratepayers having to provide schools in the place of the present voluntary schools. As to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Shields, that the Bill did not provide an effective control over the managers as regarded secular education, it was perfectly obvious that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not read Clause 8 of the Bill. That Clause provided that the authority for secular education should be the local authority, and that if any question arose between the local education authority and the managers of the schools, that question should be determined by the Board of Education, and that compliance with the orders of the authority should be one of the conditions of any such school obtaining a grant. In view of these provisions, and the assurance the Committee had received that if they were inadequate they should be strengthened, it was a little hard on the Prime Minister to be told that when he talked about local and popular control, he did so for platform purposes. The real object of the Amendment—as was, perhaps, the object of other Amendments—was to prevent the passage of the Bill as a consistent measure by the introduction of absurd provisions.
    MR. DILLONsaid he was strongly opposed to the Amendment, and would not have intervened in the debates were it not for a remark which fell from the First Lord of the Treasury which raised what appeared to him to be, perhaps, the most vital question of the entire Bill —namely, the relations between the managers and the local education authority. He was amazed to hear that the local education authority was to have a veto on the appointment and dismissal of teachers on secular grounds. Who was to be the judge of what secular

    893
    grounds were? If the local education authority was to have the power to veto the appointment or the dismissal of teachers, and to prescribe the syllabus and the books to be used, he did not see where the managers came in at all. When the proper time came, he hoped that hon. Members who represented the interests of the Catholic schools would have a great deal to say on the question of the relations of the managers to the local education authority, and would make a strong claim that the managers should have some substantial share of control in voluntary schools.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid that the argument in favour of the Amendment could be best presented in the form of an illustration. In a certain village in the Midlands a manager entered a school a short time ago—it was the only school in the village— and asked all the children who went to chapel to stand up. Upon the order being obeyed, the manager lectured the children and told them that they were on the straight road to damnation. [Several hon. Members: "Name!"] He would not give the name, because his informant was a parent of one of the children, and he knew only too well what Nonconformist children in such circumstances had to suffer. He did not say such cases were frequent, but hon. Members opposite knew as well as he did that they existed in a number of the smaller villages. What he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was whether, under the Bill, a manager would be at liberty to enter a school and act in such a manner, and yet be absolutely irremovable by the local education authority. The illustration he had given was an ample argument in support of his hon. friend's Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM MATHERsaid he thought the Prime Minister did not, if he might say so, appreciate the position. There appeared to be no doubt in the mind of the Prime Minister that the local education authority was to be absolutely supreme as regarded secular education. If that was the case, what would happen if managers of schools not provided by the local authority disobeyed any injunction or did not thoroughly carry out the instructions of the local education authority? Would the local education authority simply inform them that they
    894
    must not have anything to do with secular instruction, or could they be debarred from having any control over such instruction? It was no answer to say that the local education authority could appeal to the Board of Education. Imagine the circumlocution that would ensue! It would be impossible to appeal to the Board of Education on the 101 trivial cases that would arise in connection with the management of the schools. What they asked for was that the managers should be under the local education authority, as was provided in the Act of 1870.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he desired to point out that this discussion could be far more conveniently carried on upon Clause 8. He had informed the Committee that the principle of the Government was that the local education authority should be supreme in secular education; and if the machinery for that purpose was not sufficient, that was not the clause on which it could be improved. He would remind hon. Gentlemen that the Education Department since 1870 had had no other control over the schools of the country but the financial control, and that that had been found quite adequate. [HON. MEMBERS: No.] Well, they had always got their way. [HON. MEMBERS: No.] If that was disputed, he would not argue it any further. If the Board of Education said a thing was to be done, it was done, or the grant was withheld. That was precisely the power the local education authority would have.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that it might be that Clause 8 would be the most convenient clause on which to discuss this point; but they regarded it as a very serious blot on the Bill that there was no power on the part of the local education authority to compel recalcitrant managers to submit, except by the supreme step of refusing the grant. That meant depriving the children of education in the meantime, and, in the last resort, providing another school. Whether the question was to be decided now or later, they looked upon it as one of great importance; and they thought that some more effective control over managers should be given than that contained in the Bill.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid the Prime Minister seemed to him to have

    895
    accepted substantially the principle of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to recognise the fact that the managers would be the supreme authority, not only for the control of education, but for the appointment and dismissal of teachers. It was all very well to say that the local education authority would be provided with power to object to the appointment of teachers on educational grounds, but the managers would be supreme. That was only natural. The local education authority would be an authority at a distance; the managers would always be on the spot. If the Prime Minister recognised that that was a weak point in the Bill, and would give a definite pledge to deal with it on Clause 8, that would satisfy the supporters of the Amendment.
    MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid that there was one point which had possibly escaped the Prime Minister's attention, and that was the way in which the local education authority, under the Bill, would work They would work through Education Committees, and they had been told by the Vice-President of the Council that such Committees need not ask for confirmation of their acts from the County Council or the local education authority. That being so, the Amendment was necessary, in order to carry out their view that the local education authority should have control over education. On Friday last he gave an illustration, with chapter and verse, similar to that which had been given by his hon, friend the Member for Halifax, in which a parson and his curate told Nonconformist children that they were on the road to destruction. They should insist on such managers being removable.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that cases of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Halifax were constantly being brought before the Minister of Education, and his invariable answer was that the Education Department had no control so long as the conscience clause had not been infringed. It was time for such a state of things to be brought to an end. Were these managers to be for ever irremovable? Supposing a manager left the neighbourhood, was he still to be a manager? It was absolutely necessary that there should be some power of removing such managers and substituting others.
    *MR. H. J. WILSONthought that some better explanation of the difficulties which had been raised ought to be given. Suppose the managers and the local authority were at loggerheads, and an appeal was made to the Education Department, but its decision not complied with. The only thing that could be touched was the Parliamentary grant, and in that case the school and the children would suffer. The Prime Minister ought to explain how the decisions would be ultimately enforced.
    MR. WHTTLEYasked whether, if a manager made a statement such as he had quoted to the children, the local education authority would have power to remove him from his office?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. Gentleman would see that the case mentioned must be dealt with on Clause 8. Before an authoritative opinion could be given more details were necessary, but, as the hon. Gentleman had narrated the case, he had no hesitation in saying that the matter was a scandal.
    MR. CORRIE GRANTasked the Prime Minister to say that on Clause 8 he would accept an Amendment to provide for the removability of clerical managers who acted unreasonably, and give the ratepayers control without dilatory and unsatisfactory appeals to the Department in London. The provision as it stood was perfectly futile, as it would not deal with the kind of difficulty that would arise. The disputes would lie trifling and peddling matters, as a rule, such as recently occurred in a village in Yorkshire. The local temperance society had arranged for some lectures to be given in the Church school with the leave of the managers. Suddenly the managers objected to temperance lectures being given in Lent. The Parish Council called a meeting in the same school-room to discuss the action of the managers, whereupon the vicar and churchwarden demanded a fee of a guinea for the hire of the room. That was in 1901, and over since communications had been passing between the local body and the Education Department and the Local Government Board, each of the Government Departments saying it was a matter for the other, and the grievance remained unsettled. Such

    897
    matters ought to be capable of settlement immediately on the spot, without having recourse to such cumbrous methods involving delay of months.
    MR. WHITLEYasked whether, in the event of this Clause being passed without the question of the removability of managers being dealt with, it would be possible to raise the matter on Clause 8.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: If the Committee now decide that the managers are not to be removable, they will not be able to go back on that decision.
    SIR WILLIAM MATHERremarked that he had placed Amendments on the Paper dealing with this matter under Clause 8.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid in that case, as he could not possibly accept it, it would be to the interest of the hon. Member that, the present Amendment should be withdrawn. To promise something in connection with matters which arose on a subsequent Clause was an inconvenient method of procedure, and would also prejudge questions which would come up at a later stage.
    MR. BRYCEput it to his hon. friend whether it would not be wise to withdraw the Amendment, as the matter could be better discussed on Clause 8, and the importance of the question had been admitted.
    *MR. CHANNINGsaid there were various reasons in favour of withdrawing the Amendment, but in taking that course he desired to emphasize its importance. It raised the question of the inequality of treatment of the schools. It would be a monstrous thing that the board schools which had a real local management should be deprived of their local independence, while the denominational schools should have their managers given a permanent autonomy.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpressed the First Lord of the Treasury not to proceed further with the Bill this
    898
    evening. The next Amendment was a very important one, and would necessarily take a long time. He moved to report progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again." —(Mr. Lloyd George.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his only desire was to conduct the discussion of the Clause in a businesslike manner. He had expressed his intention to shorten the Clause and to make it more logical by eliminating all the machinery parts of it. Under those circumstances he believed that the Committee would be ready to come to a decision on the Clause tomorrow. He hoped they would have a long Parliamentary day tomorrow, and the main business would be the Education Hill. If it was the general view of the Committee that it would deal with the important questions which still remained before it separated to-morrow night, he was prepared to assent to the Motion.
    MR. BRYCEsaid it it would be the general wish of the Committee that they should begin the discussion of this important question at a time when it could be properly debuted. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to move an Amendment eliminating the machinery part of the Clause, it would be perfectly simple for him to do so, but that did not appear to him to be in the natures of a compromise.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, although he objected to the word compromise, he would be ready to move an Amendment to eliminate the machinery part of the Clause, in the belief that the Committee would be able to finish the discussion next day. The discussion would be resumed on the question of proportion between the managers. The Bill would be taken at the afternoon and evening sittings tomorrow.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

    PUBLIC WOKKS LOANS (REMISSION OF DEBTS).
    Resolution reported:—
    "That it is expedient to authorise the Remission of certain Debts due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and the Commissioners of Public; Works in Ireland, in pursuance of any act in the; present Session relating to Local Loans."

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) took the chair.]
    Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4:—
    MR. LOUGHmoved the omission of Clause 4. He thought the defence which they had had from the Secretary to the Treasury about one of these loans was not at all satisfactory, for he contended that the claims of the Treasury against Richard Cosh ought to have been proceeded with. He therefore moved that Clause 4 be omitted.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)admitted that very regrettable loss had followed from the making of the Cosh loan referred to by the hon. Member. The Treasury had had to make the best of a bad job, and they had decided to write the amount off. The hon. Member had asked why they did not proceed against Cosh, to whom this loan was granted, but the only reason was that the Commissioners found that he had no property. And they thought he was not worth powder and shot, and, as he was a man of straw, there was no chance of recovering anything from him. If he thought there was the slightest chance of ever getting hold of this man and wiping off the loan he should be very
    900
    reluctant to relieve him of the obligaition, but that was not the case. He admitted that in one sense the explanation was not satisfactory, because it was an admission that the whole transaction was a bad one, but he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied and that he would not divide the House. The Commissioners had advanced.£540,000 under the Act of 1866, and this was the only bad debt they had made on the whole of that sum. They had pleaded guilty to an error of judgment in this case. The Committee might feel assured that they did not make loans recklessly.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid it was not the practice to write off bad debts in the way now proposed. The liability was continued against the debtor, so that it might be recovered if possible if at any time he should turn up. Why should they discharge the debt in this case? He urged that the liability should be left in the same way as when Irish tenants did not pay the advances made to them.
    MR. WHITTAKERcalled attention to the provisions of the Act of 1866, and asked why a loan of considerably more than half the value had been made.
    MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was one of the regrettable things in connection with this transaction. Unfortunately, the Commissioners made a mistake.
    Clause agreed to. Clause 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6:—
    MR. FLYNNcalled attention to the proposal with regard to the sale of the Derry Central Railway to the Northern Counties Railway Company, and asked why that Company should get the advantage of £15,000 on a transaction of,£100,000.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINstated that when the Commissioners

    901
    foreclosed they offered the railway for sale. They failed to get a satisfactory offer. Tenders were then invited, and they accepted the highest. The bargain was carried out on the best terms that could be obtained. The property had been sold to the highest bidder, and they were not now releasing the Northern Counties Railway Companies of anything they undertook.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid that the Government stuck fast to the mortgage on the line. Nobody looked after it, and the whole of the permanent way was stolen. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, he knew as a matter of fact, that a station was stolen.
    MR. FLYNNsaid he did not know that "stolen" was the proper word, but it had disappeared altogether. Under the circumstances he would not press the Amendment of which he had given notice.
    Clause 6 and remaining Clauses agreed to.
    Motion made and Question proposed that the Schedule stand part of the Bill.
    MR. DILLONmoved the omission of all the lines on pages 5, from line 16 to the end of Part II, (1); and on page 6 from line 1 to line 16. This part of the Schedule covered the loans made to small tenant farmers in Ireland under the Land Act of 1881. Here was a system of making loans of public money to the small tenants for the purpose of improving their holdings, and when the holdings were improved the landlords took possession of all improvements because the rent had not been paid. That was an extremely good illustration of the way in which the Land Act was worked. In some cases the landlords robbed the State, in other cases they robbed the tenants, and in yet other cases they robbed both the tenants and the State. That gave one a conception of the untold millions which had been stolen by the Irish landlords by the process of eviction.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that when he looked into this question last
    902
    year, he had been very much tempted to see whether he could not do what the hon. Gentleman opposite had suggested, and introduce some Amendment of the law with the general assent of the House, which would make the loan chargeable on the landlord's interest, but the difficulty was the inclusion of the losses. He would consult with the Irish Government and give the matter further consideration.
    MR. DILLONsaid he wished the hon. Gentleman to understand that he did not desire to obstruct the landlords improving their estates. The very reverse was the case. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. FLAVINthought they ought to be supplied with more information about the men to whom this money was advanced, and in the information published they ought to give the district as well as the county where these men resided.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not think there would be any difficulty about doing that.
    MR. CALDWELLasked if these Votes were being given at the present moment, and to what extent? In 1881 the circumstances were quite different. He wished to know to what extent money was being granted under this Act.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was afraid he could not give the hon. Member the details, but he might say that on the whole the losses were not very heavy. As a rule the tenants made every effort to pay, and it would really be placing an obstacle in the way of necessary improvements if they adopted any other course.
    MR. DILLONthought it would be a very great mistake to limit the issuing of these loans to improvements.

    903
    Everybody knew that the discouragement to undertake improvements had been so great up to the present time that there was a great deal of room for improvement in regard to small holdings. His object was to direct attention to abuses, and to show the real causes which had led to the mistakes which had occurred. He might say in passing that the British Treasury had lost nothing by those loans, for he understood that they had made a profit, because the interest was put sufficiently high to cover contingencies, and when one tenant was in default, the other tenants, by paying a little more, made up the loss. He wished to allude to the case of Mr. John O'Brien, who got an advance from the Treasury of £666, of which £470 16s. 7d. was now proposed to be written off. Therefore on that transaction the State lost £470. In this case the State advanced to the landlord a. sum largely in excess of the total value of the holding. The interest of the tenant was more than half the; total value of the holding; but what was being done in many cases was that pressure was put upon the tenant, and money was advanced upon the total value of the holding as it stood. The result was that, on account of the way in which those transactions were carried out, the security to the State was lost and done away with. That was what had happened in this case, with the result that it had been seized upon by the landlord, who had disposed of the estate. This transaction was only one of a considerable number of a similar character. It was a transaction in which the Land Commission departed altogether from the principle on which land purchase ought to be conducted with the result that they did away with the margin of security. He did not bring up this case, as the Chief Secretary had said, to show that the process of land sale in Ireland was unsafe to the State, because past experience had shown it to be one of the safest transactions which the State had over made. He believed that land purchase was the only possible solution, and he was jealous of the maladministration by which those losses wore incurred, and the Commissioners ought not to lend money under the pressure of needy landlords. It should be remembered that it was the duty of the Land Commission to the whole community to secure that this margin of security was safeguarded,
    904
    for upon this depended the whole success of this system. He was convinced that if this principle was carried out, no such cases of default, as he had alluded to, would ever arise. For these reasons he begged leave to move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed —
    "In Schedule, page 7, to omit Part III"— (Mr. Dillon.)
    MR. FLYNNsaid he had worked out the case alluded to by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and he found that it amounted to twenty-nine years purchase. That was a very extravagant sum to pay for a holding in Ireland, and it was quite double its proper value. He thought his hon. friend had rendered a public service to the cause of land purchase in Ireland by drawing public attention to this important case, because, if such instances were not exposed, such cases might occur in larger numbers, and thus the whole system of land purchase in Ireland might be undermined. There was a great tendency to inflate the value of land on the part of the Irish landlords, and if they could only get any backing from the Government of the day, no doubt a great blow would be struck at the system. This case would never have occurred if the original burden placed upon the tenant had not been more than he could possibly bear. The real value of this example would be to warn the Land Commissioners and the Treasury that, in sanctioning loans of this character they ought to make it quite clear that there was ample security for what the State was advancing. He trusted that many cases of this kind would not crop up, but if the present tendency went on, he ventured to prophesy that in future sessions, instead of having one case, they would probably have many other cases involving thousands of pounds.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not agree with the hon. Member in regard to the arguments he had put forward with reference to this particular case. The tenant in the first instance got a very considerable immediate relief which ought to

    905
    have put him in a good position to commence with. He did not wish to argue now a point of controversy, for he was only dealing with the principle with which he understood the Secretary to the, Treasury agreed. In this case their failure to obtain better land was largely owing to the dilapidations, because the holding had not been let for some time, and consequently the value of the farm had very much deteriorated during that time. This accounted for the loss which had been sustained by the State.
    MR. DILLONsaid that after the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury he would not pursue the matter further, beyond making a request that he should give them in future the name of the county or parish or district of the borrower, and the name of the vendor. He did not know much about the actual facts of the last case, but on a previous occasion he exposed in the House a case in which there had been collusion, where one relative sold a farm to another at a grotesquely outrageous price. Under the present law in Ireland, such transactions were possible, and cases were common where a relative let a big farm to a son at a fictitious rent for the purpose of coming on the British Treasury to scoop in a large sum of money. He objected to these collusive transactions, and while he had not sufficient evidence in the case, he had mentioned to warrant him in believing that then; had been collusion, he urged the Secretary to the Treasury to give them the name of the vendor in the future in order that they might make inquiries to ascertain whether the transactions ought to be allowed or not. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

    LICENSING BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered.
    Lords Amendment:—
    "In page 2, line 40, after 'wife, 'insert' Provided that instead of making an order in pur-
    906
    suance of paragraph (a) of this sub-section the Court may, with the consent of the wife, order her to be committed to and detained ill any retreat licensed under the Inebriates Act, 1879, to 1900, the licensee of which is willing to receive her; and such order shall have effect as it she had been admitted to the retreat under section 10 of the Habitual Drunkards Act, 1879, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and the Court may order an officer of the court, or a constable, to remove her to the retreat accordingly.' "
    The first Amendment, read a second time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." —(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
    Mr. GROVESmoved, "That the Debate be now adjourned," but Mr. SPEAKER, being of the opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.
    Lords' Amendment in page 3, agreed to.
    Lords' Amendment in page 4 ("Interpretation of 'public place' "):- —
    MR. CONINGSBY DISRAELIsaid he should like to know the opinion of the Home Secretary upon the Amendment, because the difficulties of knowing a drunken person would be very considerable. Was the Home Secretary prepared to support the Amendment?
    *MR. RITCHIE: I think my hon. and learned friend will see the object of this Amendment. Section 3 ought to apply in whatever place the persons are found. This provision has been put in by the House of Lords with general consent, and I think it ought to appear in that way.
    Subsequent Lords' Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 9, line 8, inclusive, agreed to.
    Lords' Amendment—
    "In page 9, lines 23 and 24, leave out 'seven days of and insert 'three days before.'"
    *MR. RITCHIE: Since the Bill left this House the term has been altered to three days. When the Bill was before the Committee seven days was put in, because it was thought that when there was no petty sessional court within seven days of the time when the licence was required it might be very inconvenient if some other means was not provided for the granting of occasional licences. It was provided that under those circumstances two justices might determine such a case. The Lords have struck out seven days and put in three. If this Amendment were accepted it might very well be that instead of an applicant going to the Petty Sessions he might in the case of every application go before the two justices, and the idea was that this privilege should only be used when no opportunity existed of going to the petty sessional court. There are licensing sessions nearly all over the country every week. I do not propose to move to disagree with the Amendment of the Lords, but presently I will move a consequential Amendment, which will secure that in the ordinary course of things the Petty Sessional Court should be resorted to, and that these two justices can only be resorted to when the other Court is not available.
    MR. CONINGSBY DISRAELIsaid he wished to say a few words upon this Amendment. He was sorry that his right hon. friend had given in to the alteration of this seven days to three. Whatever change might be brought about by the consequential Amendment now suggested, it was much clearer to have seven days in the Clause, and he was afraid the Amendment suggested by the Home Secretary would leave a loophole, which was the very thing they wished to avoid.
    A consequential Amendment made in the Bill:—
    "In page 9, line 24, by inserting after the word 'required,' the words 'and it is shown to the satisfaction of the justices hereinafter mentioned that it was not practical to make an application to a petty sessional court.' "— (Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
    Subsequent Lords Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 11, line 29, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:—
    "In page 11, line 40, after 'club,' insert '(7.) In the application of this section to Oxford, the Registrar of the Court of the Chancellor of the University shall be substituted for the clerk to the justices in the case of any club mainly composed of Members past or present of the University."
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
    MR. GALLOWAYsaid he did not understand why the right hon. Gentleman had not explained this Amendment, which was not moved when the Bill was before the House of Commons. He did not wish to delay the House, but he could not understand why they should make a special exemption with regard to the University of Oxford. He had not heard any reasons why this exemption should be made, and for his own part he was of the opinion that all these matters ought to be dealt with by the petty sessional court. There ought to be no exemption made in one particular case which did not exist in regard to any other University. It might be argued that other Universities did not wish to exercise this exemption, but he strongly objected to making an exemption for one particular university for no cause shown without, any discussion, either in this House or before the Government Committee. Unless the right hon. Gentleman could give the House some satisfactory reason for this Amendment he should divide the House upon it.
    MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that this Amendment was not moved when the Bill was before the House, because I thought it was not desirable that an Amendment of this character should be taken without the House having notice of it, and therefore it was not pressed. I would remind the House that there is a living, moving Court which keeps a sharp eye upon the undergraduates, and it was thought, that being so, that this one question of clubs which are composed in the main of Members of the University ought not to be taken out of the jurisdiction of the Vice Chancellor's Court. The reason why no other University is put in is because they have not put forward a claim, or that they do not desire it.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he wished to make it quite clear that the University of Oxford was not by this Amendment asking for any new privilege. The only object of the proposal was to retain the existing jurisdiction in order to prevent a conflict of jurisdiction, and to ensure the continuance of certain disciplinary powers. The Proctors and the City Police worked harmoniously together and they had no difficulty in maintaining order. If there
    was anything which called for petty sessional jurisdiction there was the Vice Chancellor's Court, which exercised petty sessional jurisdiction under the Act of 1886. The Vice Chancellor could deal with any matter in which the members of the University or their clubs were concerned. For these reasons he hoped the House would not think for a moment that they were asking for anything which was improper or exceptional, and the reason why other universities did not go in for similar privileges was because they did not want them, and because they had not the machinery for exercising those privileges.
    MR. CONINGSBY DISRAELIsaid the hon. Member for Oxford University had just given them a long apology for introducing antiquated machinery into this Bill. This Amendment introduced by the Lords was what Cambridge had done away with long ago, and he was sorry to see this machinery revived in the new century.
    (2.8.) Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 18. (Division List No. 381.)
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir. Alex. F.

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Collings, Rt. Hon, Jesse

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Beach, Rt, Hn Sir Michael Hicks-

    Cranborne, Lord

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Crean, Eugene

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Delany, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Doogan, P. C.

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Caldwell, James

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Keswick, William

    Knowles, Lees

    Mount, William Arthur

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Langley, Batty

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Sullivan, Donal

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Levy, Maurice

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

    Tennant, Harold John

    Loder, Gerald Walter' Erskine

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Lough, Thomas

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Valentia, Viscount

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Purvis, Robert

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Lundon, W.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und, Lyne

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

    M'Crae, George

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Rutherford, John

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries-sh.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Milvain, Thomas

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES —

    Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

    Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside

    Sir William Walrond and

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (S rand)

    Mr. Anstruther.

    NOES.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Nannetti, Joseph P,

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Grant, Corrie

    O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

    Weir, James Galloway

    Groves, James Grimble

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

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Priestley, Arthur

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    M'Govern, T.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Mr. Galloway and Mr.

    Murnaghan, George

    Spear, John Ward

    Disraeli.

    MR. CREMERsaid he had been requested to thank the Homo Secretary, on behalf of the workmen's clubs, for what he had done in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had satisfied the clubs in the West End of London, as well as those in the East End, and the workmen's clubs throughout the country.

    FRESH WATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Lords Amendment considered:—
    In page 2, line 13, leave out from ("lochs") to ("or") in line 14, and insert ("all the proprietors of which have agreed to permit such fishing").
    MR. M'CRAEsaid the Amendment introduced by the Lords was contrary to the spirit of the Bill as
    912
    passed by the House of Commons. He would not, however, oppose it, as, at this period of the session it might be fatal to the measure to do so.
    MR. CALDWELLalso protested against the Lords Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July last, adjourned the House without Question put.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes after Two o'clock, a.m.