Sitting of 1 May 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  [BY ORDER.]
  Order for consideration read.
  MR. DILLONsaid he had intended to propose the introduction of a new clause into this Bill, but he had ascertained that an agreement had been come to between those on whose behalf
  410
  he was speaking and the Corporation of Belfast as to the regulations under which the Ulster Hall would, in future, be available for the citizens of Belfast. All they desired was that there should be a clear understanding, and, so far as he was concerned, he was perfectly content that it should be an honourable understanding, that the hall which the Corporation of Belfast had acquired should not be used merely by one section of the citizens, but that all sections, of whatever politics or religious creed, should be on equal terms. He asked for such an assurance from the hon. Member in charge of the Bill.
  MR. WOLFFsaid that when the Bill was under discussion, on the Motion for Second Beading, every speaker on his side of the House declared that there was no intention whatever on the part of the Corporation of the City of Belfast to make any difference, on either political or religious grounds, between applicants for the use of the hall. If the hon. Member for East Mayo desired a more definite assurance, on his part he would be very glad to give it, and he could give it on the authority of the Town Clerk of Belfast, who had authorised him to say that the Corporation had acquired Ulster Hall for the benefit of the citizens of Belfast, wholly irrespective of religious or political views. He could assure the hon. Member that that undertaking would be given the fullest possible effect to. Of course, rules would have to be drawn up, regulating the letting of the hall. He hoped that that would satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. DILLON: I am perfectly satisfied.
  Bill ordered to be read a third time.

  PRIVATE RILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Order's not

  411
  previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.—
  Donegal Railway Bill [Lords].
  Waterford and Bishop Foy Endowed Schools Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time tomorrow.

  DARLEY DALE WATER BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION WATER BILL [LORDS] [By ORDER].
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [BY ORDER].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Carlisle (Rural), Folkestone, Harrogate, Liversedge, Sheffield, and Weetslade, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Barnsley, Chadderton, Farn-worth, Sevenoaks (Rural), Stratford-upon-Avon, Wells, West Bromwich, and Yeovil, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Metropolitan boroughs of Bethnal Green, Stoke Newington, and Woolwich, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW).
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Metropolitan Asylum District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS).
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Silsden, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Carlisle (Rural), Folkestone, Harrogate, Liversedge, Sheffield, and Weetslade," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Barnsley, Chadderton, Farnworth, Sovenoaks (Rural), Stratford-upon-Avon, Wells, West Bromwich, and Yeovil," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 182.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Metropolitan boroughs of Bethnal Green, Stoke Newington, and Woolwich," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Metropolitan Asylum District," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Silsden," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 185.]
  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Costs awarded]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.*
  GREAT CENTRAL AND MIDLAND RAILWAYS (SOUTH YORKSHIRE RAILWAYS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.*
  SHEFFIELD, ROTHERHAM, AND BAW-TRY RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.*

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Costs awarded]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.*
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL,
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL,
  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.*

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 6).
  Sir SAMUEL HOAREreported from the Committee on Group No. 6 of Railway Bills, That Mr. Osmond Williams (Merioneth), one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
  Mr. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEreported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  CHARD GAS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
  Mr. FISONreported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill had stated that the evidence of W. Adams, of No. 15, Vincent Road. Noel Park, Wood Green, Estate Agent, and C. Crowe, of No. 471, Seven Sisters Road, Tottenham, builder, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the

  415
  House, he had been instructed to move that the said W. Adams and C. Crowe do attend he said Committee on Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That W. Adams and C. Crowe do attend the Committee on Group J of Private Bills on Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL,
    NORTH METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed*.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 3).
  Mr. HENRY HOBHOUSEreported from the Committee on Group No. 3 of Railway Bills, That, there being no business ready for their consideration, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half past One of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  REPAYMENT OF LOANS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES (MESSAGE TO THE LORDS).
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Baron Welby of Allington to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee on the Repayment of Loans by Local Authorities.—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further power upon the Longwood Gas Company; and for other purposes." [Longwood Gas Bill (Lords).]
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Urban District Council of Abertillery to construct additional waterworks and to make further provision in regard to the water undertaking of the Council, and as to the supply of electricity; and for other purposes." [Abertillery Urban District Council Bill (Lords).]
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Newcastle and Gateshead Water Company to construct an enlarged reservoir on the River Rede, and other works; and for other purposes." [Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill (Lords).]
  LONGWOOD GAS BILL [LORDS],
  ABERTILLERY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [LORDS].
  NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS,
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Tottenham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Droylsden, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
  Petition from York, for inquiry into the compulsory system of registration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Carnwood; Higher Tranmere; and Hebden Bridge; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Cambuslang; and Scottish Temperance Federation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Shipley (thirteen); Failsworth; Leeds; Tiverton; Bournemouth; Coventry (three); Tottenham; North Shields; Newcastle-under-Lyne; St. John's Wood; and Chorlton-Cum-Hardy; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Glasgow and Golspie; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (ASSAM LABOUR AND EMIGRATION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 22nd April; Mr. Schwann] to lie upon the Table.
  INDIAN EXPENDITURE (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 28th April; Lord George Hamilton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 169.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1889).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Board of Education on the Administration of Schools, under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 170.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2778 to 2782 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPS AS ARMED CRUISERS.
  Return ordered, of Merchant Liners under contract with His Majesty's Government for use as armed cruisers in war in the form set out below—

  Name of vessel, and when built.

  Name of company or firm owning.

  Tonnage.

  Amount of annual subsidy.

  Date of expiry of contract.

  —(Mr. Cohen.)

  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  Address for "Return showing the number of experiments performed on living animals during the year 1901, under Licences granted under the Act 39 and 10 Vic, c. 77, distinguishing painless from painful experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 192 of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS (POPULATION OVER 10,000) AND OTHER URBAN DISTRICTS (POPULATION OVER20,000), ENGLAND AND WALES, EXCLUDING LONDON.
  Return ordered, "of Statement showing, according to the Preliminary Report on the Census of England and Wales, 1901, the names of the municipal boroughs (other than county boroughs) having a population of over 10,000, the names of the urban districts (other than boroughs) having a population of over 20,000, the population of those boroughs and urban districts, and the names of the administrative counties in which those boroughs and urban districts are situate."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
  Return ordered, "relating to all authorised gas undertakings in the United Kingdom, other than those of local authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of December, 1901 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 320 of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return ordered, "relating to all authorised gas undertakings in the United Kingdom belonging to local authorities, for the year ended the 25th day of, March, 1902 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 321 of Session 1901)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
(3.35.) QUESTION'S.

  South African War—Peace Negotiations.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give any information as to the prospects of peace in South Africa.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There is no information in the possession of the Government which I can give to the House.

  Cost of the War.
  MR. CREMER: I wish to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total

  419
  cost of the war in South Africa from the time of the Boer ultimatum to 31st March of the present year, distinguishing between the amount paid out of general taxation and the amount raised by way of loan and added to the National Debt.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SIR M. HICKS BEACH,: The hon. Member will find the information in the Return entitled "Wars in South Africa and China" (House of Commons Paper 155), just issued.
  MR. CREMER: May I be allowed to explain that this Question had been on the Notice Paper some days before the Return referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was issued?

  Labour in Johannesburg Mines.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a number of Cornish and other miners who left this country in January and February last, under War Office permits, to take up their old employment in mines at Johannesburg, are detained at Cape Town, and cannot proceed further in consequence of the refusal of the Permit Office at Cape Town to grant proper facilities of travel: and if he will telegraph instructions that all miners who can furnish satisfactory evidence of engagement at mines which are now working shall be immediately allowed to proceed to their destination.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: I am informed by Lord Milner that special arrangements have been made to meet the mining industry, whereby, when authority is given to drop a number of stamps, permits for men to do the work entailed are granted, irrespective of the ordinary allowance of permits. No miners, therefore, who really have employment to come to are delayed at the coast, as the mining companies requisition for any men they require, and permits are authorised at once. Miners referred to as being detained at Cape Town probably fall under one of two categories. Either
  420
  they were not employed immediately before the war by mines now working, or they have been promised employment on mines which have not yet started crushing.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it a fact that priority is always given to men who were engaged as miners before the war broke out?
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I believe that is so.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the men formerly employed in the Johannesburg mines are kept back because their places have been filled by Kaffirs?
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, that is not true.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Well, I know it.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is a most irrelevant Question.

  Compensation for War Losses.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what course is being taken by His Majesty's Government with regard to claims for alleged war losses in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope where such claims have been allowed by the Compensation Courts, and what was the composition of those courts; whether a difference has been made between claims in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, which have been met up to the extent of 75 per cent. of the allowed claim by His Majesty's Government, and claims in Cape Colony, where 50 per cent. has been paid by the Colonial Government, while the Prime Minister of Cape Colony has declared that he cannot go beyond 50 per cent. without a guarantee of repayment by His Majesty's Government; and, seeing that the Cape Government has set aside £250,000 towards meeting the claims, whether the whole of that money has been repaid to the Government of the Colony by the Imperial Government or is to be repaid in the future.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have undertaken that claims for losses caused by the enemy or by His Majesty's troops which are allowed by the Compensation Commissions in the Cape Colony and which were sustained by persons not concerned in the rebellion, will, like similar claims in the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Natal, be met by the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. Two compensation Commissions were appointed in the Cape Colony in July, 1900, each consisting of a magistrate, a leading farmer, and an officer selected for his knowledge of similar work. In the Bechuanaland Protectorate 75 per cent. of the allowed claim is advanced from Protectorate funds in accordance with the course adopted by Natal. In the Cape Colony 50 per cent. is advanced from Cape funds, in accordance with the provisions of the Cape Act No. 6 of 1900. These advances have not been repaid, but they, together with the balance of the allowed claims, will be provided out of the first loan raised on behalf of the new Colonies.

  Home Furlough for Troops leaving South Africa for India.
  MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements can be made to enable men who have served throughout the war, and whose regiments or batteries are under orders to proceed direct from South Africa to India at the conclusion of the war or earlier, to visit this country on furlough prior to their proceeding to India.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY.: This plan has been already given careful consideration. It has, however, been found impossible to make the necessary arrangements without unduly retaining in India the equivalent number of men.
  MR. RENWICK: May I ask the noble Lord if he can give this matter further consideration? It is very important.
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir, it is important; and the Secretary of State has looked into it very carefully. He is unable to grant the request.

  Cornish Volunteers and the War Medal.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why the Cornish Volunteer service company who served in the South African war, and returned home twelve months ago, have not yet received their clasps for the South African war medal, while other Volunteer service companies, returning at the same time, have received these clasps some months ago.
  LORD STANLEY: It is necessary to check the Volunteer rolls with the rolls of the line battalion to which they were attached, to prevent mistakes; and it has not yet been found possible to check the roll of the line battalion concerned. The rolls are being checked with all possible despatch, but the work, as the hon. Member will understand, is laborious, and requires considerable care.
  MR. CAINE: Can the noble Lord say when the checking will be completed?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.
  MR. CAINE: Six months, or a year or two hence?
  LORD STANLEY: I think the hon. Member will find, on inquiry, that extraordinary expedition has been shown in this matter of getting out the medals for the Volunteer companies.

  Scottish Volunteers and the Coronation.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now announce to what extent the attendance of Volunteer regiments or battalions will be required from Scotland for the Coronation; what regiments or battalions will be required; and whether whole regiments or portions of regiments only
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): It is proposed to ask Volunteer units to furnish detachments of two officers, two sergeants, one bugler, drummer, trumpeter or piper, and twenty rank and file, i.e., twenty-five of all ranks.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Will that include all regiments?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes.

  R.A.M.C. Officers.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of enabling R.A.M.C. officers who have been retired, but are now doing duty in one of the retired appointments, to reckon for pension ten years of such service as an equivalent of five years of full pay service.
  LORD STANLEY: I do not think the Government would be justified in undertaking the increase in expenditure suggested by the hon. Member. The officers to whom the hon. Member refers are regarded as being sufficiently paid for the services they perform.

  Training Spaces for London Volunteers.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what open spaces are available within an easy march for the field training of London Volunteer Corps; whether his official information shows that the places thus available are sufficient in size and number; and whether the War Office intends to take any steps to secure the use of further open spaces for this purpose.
  LORD STANLEY: The War Office is thoroughly alive to the desirability of providing means for proper field training, but the cost of securing open spaces in the immediate vicinity of the metropolis would be prohibitive. It is held that the main field training of Volunteers must be carried out in camp.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Is it quite impossible for the Secreary of State to reconsider the decision as to the use of Richmond Park by the Volunteers?
  LORD STANLEY: I do not think it is the decision of the Secretary of State that would have to be reconsidered.

  Scottish Rifle Ranges.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that a Bill has recently been introduced into the House of Commons for the purpose of confirming a Provisional Order for the compulsory purchase of ground adjacent to the
  424
  shore at Prestwick and Newton-on-Ayr, under The Military Lands Act, 1892, is he aware that the Kingcase Rifle Range, which it is sought to perpetuate by means of this purchase, has been declared by the Supreme Court to be a nuisance and danger to the public; and, seeing that the owners and ratepayers of Prestwick and neighbourhood have presented a petition pointing out that the range interferes with the development and prosperity of the place, will he consider the expediency of having it abandoned in favour of the range now in use at Irvine, which offers facilities for Volunteers, and is accessible from Prestwick both by omnibus and by trains at reduced rates for Volunteers.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member is evidently unaware that this Bill has been introduced for the express purpose of removing any possible danger. As the Bill will shortly be considered in Committee, I cannot discuss its terms in a reply to a Question, nor am I prepared to surrender any rights the Volunteers may have in this range.

  Ammunition Sales.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with regard to the 6,000 tons of shot and shell stored in Woolwich, at present offered for sale by the War Office, can he say whether this material or any portion of it is of German manufacture.
  LORD STANLEY: No German-made ammunition is on sale.

  Royal Army Clothing Department— Inadequacy of Exits.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that, owing to the fact that it takes about three minutes for the men working in the Royal Army Clothing Department to enter and leave the Department, thereby causing an actual loss of about six minutes to the men at dinner time, the authorities have recently been obliged to open a second gate on the south side; and whether he will consider the advisability of opening the north gate instead of a second gate on the south side in the interest of the men living in the direction of the north gate entrance.
  LORD STANLEY: The north gate is reserved for the female workers. The present arrangement is undoubtedly the best, and I have no intention of interfering with it.

  Royal Army Clothing Department—Accommodation for Female Workers.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the inadequate accommodation for the women piece workers engaged in pressing ill the Royal Army Clothing Department; and whether, seeing that the accommodation is now practically the same for some 1,500 hands as sufficed prior to the present war for about 900, and that consequently delay and disturbance arise, he will take steps to improve the accommodation; and, whether he will consider the advisability of arranging for the weekly payment of the allowance made to this class of workers when shut out through infectious disease, instead of payment in bulk upon return to work, so as to prevent hardship arising from such method of payment.
  LORD STANLEY: The number of persons employed on pressing irons before the war was 1,348 and not 900. A new pressing house for twelve additional irons is ready and will shortly be available for use. Persons shut out on account of infectious disease can receive their pay weekly by any authorised intermediary.

  Departmental Committee on Military Education.
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is his intention to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Departmental Committee on Military Education; and, if so, can he say when this will be done.
  MR. PEMBERTON: At the same time I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when he intends to lay upon the Table the Report of the Military Education Committee.
  LORD STANLEY: The Report and evidence will shortly be ready for issue. I cannot give an exact date.

  Military Convicts.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of soldiers sentenced to penal servitude in South Africa for military offences now serving sentences in convict prisons in the United Kingdom, the number of sentences remitted, and the number now incarcerated; whether he will take steps to make other provision than in convict prisons for the detention of soldiers guilty of military offences; and whether he will adopt measures to ensure that soldiers now in convict prisons may not suffer on discharge therefrom the stigma attaching to the worst of criminals.
  LORD STANLEY: The number of soldiers in convict prisons for sentences in South Africa is forty-seven. The rest of the information required by the first part of the Question would appear on careful investigation to entail so much clerical labour that I fear I cannot consent to grant it. The suggestion in the second paragraph would require legislation to carry it out. As regards the last paragraph, the distinction between military offences and those against the civil law is well known, and so far as the authorities are concerned, they will do what they can in the direction suggested. I may add that my right hon. friend was entirely in sympathy with the view of the hon. Member who asks the Question.

  Steamship Subsidies Committee—Transatlantic Shipping Combination—Subvention of Merchant Steamers for War Service—Registration of British Shipping, &c.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury if he will set down his Motion for a Select Committee on Steamship Subsidies for such a time as will enable it to be adequately discussed by the House; and if, in view of the public interest aroused in the proposed combination of British and Foreign Transatlantic steamship companies, he will extend the reference to the Committee so as to include an Inquiry into the effect which will be produced by such combination on British trade, and at the same time

  427
  strengthen the personnel of the Committee; and if he will accept the Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the Member for Merthyr.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to reply that it was very important the Committee should be appointed, but he could not give the pledge asked by the hon. Member.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Admiralty, before adopting in 1887 the policy of subsidising the best merchant steamers for war purposes, consulted the Board of Trade as to the probable economic efforts of depriving the British carrying trade in war of the vessels best suited to secure immunity from capture of passengers and merchandise; and, if so, whether there is any objection to the correspondence being laid before Parliament.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Correspondence took place between the Admiralty and the Treasury in 1887 and is published in a Parliamentary Paper (C. 5006, 1887). The probable economic effect in war time of the employment of subsidised steamers does not appear to have been discussed in the correspondence, nor, as far as I am aware, were the Board of Trade consulted.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, will he state what steps, if any, are taken by the Board of Trade to ensure the carrying out of the provisions of Section 25 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which requires that, when a registered ship or a share therein is transferred, the transferee shall not be entitled to be registered as owner thereof until a declaration has been made that no unqualified person or body of persons is entitled as owner to any legal or beneficial interest in the ship or any share therein; and, in cases where the Board has grounds for believing that such a declaration is false, are any, and, if so, what, steps taken by the Board to remove the ship or ships from the British Register.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The steps taken in the case of a transfer of a ship or share therein are substantially the same as those laid down in the case of first registry. If there is any suspicion that any declaration made is false, careful inquiry is made and neither registry or transfer is allowed unless the registrar is satisfied of the bonâ fides of the transaction. If a British ship ceases to be owned by persons qualified by law to own a British ship she is at once removed from the British Register, and if British national character is improperly assumed the ship is subject to forfeiture.
  COLONEL PILKINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, pending the Report of the Select Committee on Steamship Subsidies, and the Report of the Departmental Committee recently appointed by the Admiralty, the Government will take such measures as will prevent British steamships, suitable as cruisers or transports, being transferred to another flag when such a transfer would destroy their utility for the British Government at the outbreak of war with another Power; and, whether, if the law as it at present stands does not enable them to do this, the Government will at once bring in a Bill giving them the necessary powers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have to say that my hon. friend's suggestion amounts to this—that we shall prevent a British subject from selling his property to a foreigner when that property is in the form of steamships. This question to which the hon. Member refers is no doubt, a serious matter, but so startling a change in our practice could not be attempted without the gravest consideration.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, does the Board of Trade take any steps to ascertain whether the declaration required by Section 9 (v) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to be made by any person claiming to be registered as the owner of a British ship, that no unqualified person or body of persons is entitled as owner

  429
  to any legal or beneficial interest in the ship, or any share therein, is in fact a true declaration; and, in case it comes to the knowledge of the Board of Trade that such a declaration has been made contrary to the true facts of the ease, what steps, if any, is it practice of the Board of Trade to take; and, will he further state what steps, if any, have actually been taken by the Board of Trade in eases of this kind.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, great care is taken by the Board of Trade to secure the declaration to which the hon. Member refers is a true declaration. The declaration is usually made before the registrars of Shipping who are specially instructed to point out to declarants the consequences of a false declaration, and, if the registrar has reason to doubt the truth of the facts declared, he refers the matter to the Board of Customs who consult their legal advisers as to proceeding for the recovery of the heavy penalty prescribed by the Act.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the last paragraph of my Question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to reply that it was not the duty of the Board of Trade to institute prosecutions.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a considerable number of steamships of large aggregate tonnage, engaged as well in the Atlantic trade as in the trade to Australia and New Zealand, and which are registered as British ships, are nevertheless owned entirely or mainly by citizens of the United States; and, if so, whether, having regard to Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which restricts ownership of British ships to naturalborn or naturalised British subjects, denizens, or bodies corporate established under and subject to the laws of some part of His Majesty's dominions, and having their principal place of business in those dominions, he can explain why the ships in question have been allowed to retain their British register.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to this Question is in the negative. No doubt a considerable number—in some cases a preponderating number—of the shareholders in some companies qualified under Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to own British ships are citizens of the United States or of other foreign countries. There is nothing in the existing law to prevent that, so long as the body corporate owning the ship is established under, and subject to the laws of some part of the King's dominions, and has its principal place of business in those dominions.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government have now any information showing the nature of the transaction whereby a considerable number of British steamships, or shares of companies registered as owners of those ships, have passed into the possession, or under the control, of citizens of the United States; can he state the total number and total gross tonnage of the steamships affected by this transaction, and especially its effect upon the British register of those ships; and, will he further state whether any Papers relating to the subject will be laid before the House, and whether His Majesty's Government are taking, or propose to take, any steps, and, if so, what steps, with regard to this matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, the Government is aware of the nature of the transaction to which my hon. friends refers. The information was given us confidentially, and I am not at liberty to make any public statement at the present moment with respect to the precise terms of the agreement or the number and tonnage of the vessels affected, but I may say that no change in the nationality of the ships is necessarily involved. Great care will be taken to prevent any infraction of the law. We have no Papers upon the subject which we can lay upon the Table, and I am not in a position to make any statement as to steps which may be taken by the Government other than those of which the House has already been informed in connection with the question of merchant cruisers.
  MR. CHANNING: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the White Star Company were required by their agreement with the Admiralty to give proper notice of their agreement with the American combination to transfer to that combination the control or a share in the control over or interest in ships subsidised by the Treasury under the agreement of 1887; will he state what is the effect of the agreement of this Company with the American combination on the rights reserved by the Admiralty to buy or hire these ships; and whether the obligation of the White Star Company to have half their crews of the Royal Naval Reserve will still hold good.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As I have already stated, several legal points of some difficulty are involved in this matter, and I should prefer not to express an opinion upon them. I have at present no reason to vary the statement which I made in reply to the hon. Member's supplementary Question on Friday last to the effect that hitherto the White Star Company do not appear to have violated the terms of their agreement with the Admiralty. The reply to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.
  MR. CHANNING: Does not the statement of the owners of the White Star Line, as disclosed to-day, show that there is a material alteration in the position with regard to the ships over which his Majesty's Government have the power of pre-emption?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Question of legal effect is one which I cannot answer.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Are the Admiralty in doubt as their legal rights in this matter?
  MR. ARNOLD-FOESTER: The Admiralty knows very well what are its rights after the agreement has been broken. The question of whether the agreement has, in fact, been broken, is one of these matters for legal interpretation, upon which, as I state just now, I am not prepared to express an opinion.

  Agricultural Banks in India.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has yet received any detailed information showing the success or otherwise of the agricultural banks started in the united provinces as the result of Mr. Dupernex's experiments in the Allahabad District; and if he can lay any Papers upon the Table of the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,: It is too early to expect any evidence as to the success or failure of the argricultural banks to which the hon. Member refers. They are as yet in the experimental stage. I will lay on the Table the Report of the Committee appointed by the Government of India to consider the subject of agricultural banks for India, if the hon. Member will move for it.

  India and the New Army Scheme.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state when he will be in a position to publish the objections of the Government of India on the extra cost of £786,000 a year on the revenues of India by this year's Army scheme, and the decision that has been arrived at concerning them.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: My correspondence with the Secretary of State for War on this subject is not concluded, and I am unable to state when I shall be in a position to publish the objections of the Government of India. I may add that we have agreed to pay the extra 2d. a day, but have urged objections against the incidence of cost of the extra 6d. a day, which will not be payable before April, 1904.

  Army Buckets for India.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether an order for 5,000 galvanised buckets for the use of the British Army in India has recently been placed with an American firm; and, if so, why articles manufactured abroad were in this instance preferred to those made in England.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No order for buckets has been placed by the India Office with any American firm.

  Government of India Notes—Darjeeling "Deficit" Treasury.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state why the Government of India Treasury at Darjeeling is indicated as a deficit treasury; and why it refuses to change Government of India notes, issued at Calcutta, except to travellers who are able to satisfy the Department that they are travelling round the world.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: It has been the custom in India to designate as a "deficit" treasury those treasuries in which the ordinary cash receipts are less than the expenditure. At such treasuries currency notes cannot be cashed unless the officer is satisfied that it can be done without expense or inconvenience; but facilities are, if possible, given to travellers.

  Automatic Brakes on Indian Railways.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that there are no automatic brakes on the mail trains running between Ahmedabad and Jeypore; and will he state whether, in the interests of the travelling public, steps will be taken to require the railway company to provide all passenger carriages with automatic brakes.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I will inquire into the matter.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, although the carriages of the passenger trains running between Agra and Gwalior are fitted with automatic brakes, some only are connected; and, in view of the danger arising from these conditions, will he cause some inquiry to be made with a view to greater care being exercised in making up the trains running between the places mentioned.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I will inquire, into the matter.

  Cancer in India.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give any statistics in regard to the prevalence of cancer in India; and if not, will he cause some inquiry to be made in India, with a view to the preparation of statistics on the subject.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no reliable statistics with regard to the prevalence of cancer in India, but I will ascertain from the Government of India whether any information on the subject is available, or can be procured.

  Uganda Railway.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will issue an annual balance sheet, with the capital and the trading accounts of the Uganda Railway, on the same lines as the balance sheets issued by the railway companies in this country to their shareholders.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OR STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAN-BORNE,): So far as the circumstances of the Uganda Railway and those of an English railway correspond, the particulars asked for are already shown in the Annual Parliamentary Reports, of which the last was issued in August, 1901 (Africa No. 8).

  Indian Doctors and West African Service.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if Indian medical men bearing British degrees in medicine are eligible for appointments on the West African Medical Staff.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Indian medical men are not eligible for employment on the West African Medical Staff.
  MR. CAINE: Is it not the case that Indian medical men who take the same degree are eligible for work in this country? Why are they excluded from West Africa?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is an argument I cannot enter into by way of question and answer across the floor of the House. There are circumstances which render undesirable the employment in West Africa of men of Indian birth.
  MR. CAINE: I will take another opportunity of arguing with the right hon. Gentleman.

  Hong-Kong Fatality.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the fact that forty-three persons lost their lives through the collapse of a house in Cochrane Street, Hong - Kong, last autumn, will he state whether the accident, which is alleged to have been due to defects of construction, was made the subject of a public Inquiry; if so, will he state the result of such Inquiry, and whether it is proposed to take any action against the authority responsible for the inspection of the building while it was in course of construction.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: An Inquiry was held. Proceedings were taken against the owner, contractor, and the architect, who were all fined.

  Singapore Lighthouse.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the lighthouse at Singapore is constructed on ground wholly or partly owned by the War Office, and that the commercial community at Singapore as well as the masters of ships visiting the port require an improved lighthouse, will the War Office give its favourable consideration to any application which may be made by the responsible authority for such further land as may be required for the erection of a more suitable lighthouse.
  LORD STANLEY: Authority for handing over the site was given in April, 1901, and a Report was received from the officer commanding the troops, dated 26th February last, that the lighthouse was in course of erection.

  New Corn Duty and English Horse -Breeding.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to a statement issued by the London Road Car Company, showing that the tax on corn will cost the company £83 15s. per week, equal to a tax of £9 11s. per annum on each of the 456 omnibuses run by the company; and whether, seeing the additional cost the tax will impose on horse-owners, and
  436
  the effect it will have on horse-breeding in England, he can gee his way to let in maize and oats free.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My attention has been called to the statement in the first paragraph of the Question: but it is clear from a letter I received from the company that their alarm is rather due to the recent exceptionally high price of maize, as compared with its price three or four years ago, and to their fear that this may continue, than to any actual effect of the duty. I do not think it will have the effect on horse-owners or horse-breeding generally that the hon. Member seems to anticipate but, in any case, I could not except maize and oats from the duty.

  Agrarian Crime Returns.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will assent to the preparation of the Return of agrarian offences throughout England, Scotland, and Wales, standing on today's Paper.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): No, Sir. As agrarian crimes are not separately classified in England and Scotland it is not possible to obtain the information asked for.

  London and India Docks (Lighterage Rates, &c) Bill.
  MR. KIMBERhad on the Paper the following Question—To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the London and India Docks (Lighterage Rates, &c.) Bill, now awaiting Committee, is in all essential respects identical with the London and India Docks Joint Committee Bill, which was negatived without a division on 15th May, 1901, upon the Motion of the President of the Board of Trade, upon the ground that its proposals could not be considered until full inquiry had been instituted, which was thereupon ordered, and is being conducted by the Royal Commission on the Port of London, whose Report has not yet been made; and whether he will oppose the procedure with the said Bill until the Royal Commission has reported.

  437
  On being called upon by Mr. SPEAKER to put it the hon. Member said--I have just been informed that the Bill has been withdrawn since my Question was put on the Paper, and under the circumstances I need not trouble the right hon. Gentleman.

  London and India Docks (Various Powers) Bill.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the matters dealt with by some of the sub-sections of Section 16 of the London and India Docks (Various Powers) Bill, as amended in Committee, come within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Port of London, and that evidence was given before that tribunal thereon; and whether the Government will oppose the further procedure with that Bill also until the Royal Commission has reported.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that the clause of the London and India Docks (Various Powers) Bill, to which my hon. friend refers, was fully considered by the Committee upstairs, who were aware of the terms of the reference to the Royal Commission. I assume that the Committee, after hearing the parties, were satisfied that the powers proposed to be conferred upon the company by the clause are necessary for the regulation of traffic, and that the granting of such powers would not fetter Parliament in dealing with the question hereafter in accordance with any recommendation of the Royal Commission. In these circumstances I am not prepared to oppose the further progress of the Bill.

  London Water Bill.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will propose the insertion in the Water Bill of clauses to re-adjust the existing water rates, and to charge them on uniform principles through London, and so that the charge for water should be such as to prevent any deficiency in the water fund which might be a burden upon the rates; also provisions for securing uniformity of valuation for assessment, similar to
  438
  those contained in the Valuation Metropolis Act, 1869, application to the district outside the county of London affected by the Bill; and whether he will propose provisions for the supply of water by meter compulsorily if required by consumers.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): Such matters as the re-adjustment of water rates or the supply by meter must, I think, be left to the consideration of the Water Board. A proposal will, however, be made before the Joint Committee to insert a provision in the Bill to the effect that the Water Board shall not, until otherwise authorised by Parliament, reduce the rates charged for the supply of water below those in force during the present quarter. An Amendment of the law, so as to secure uniformity of valuation for assessment, will be one of the main objects of the proposed Government Valuation Bill. It would be outside the scope of the Water Bill.

  Bethnal Green Guardians—Grove Park Workhouse.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a resolution from the Green wich Board of Guardians, asking that they be allowed to revise their outstanding loans, and to borrow the money for the Grove Park Workhouse and the cottage homes at Sidcup, on the principle of repaying in sixty years instead of thirty years; and, if so, whether he will accede to the request.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The Guardians have made an application to me on this subject during the present week. I am giving it my consideration, and hope to arrive at a decision with regard to it in the course of a few days.

  Exports of Corn Offal.
  MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his Department has or could obtain any information as to the alleged practice of exporting again to continental countries the offals of

  439
  corn imported to Liverpool and ground in mills there; and if he has any official reports showing that the prohibitive island railway rates make it cheaper to do this than to send them inland to England and Ireland for the benefit of the British farmer.
  COLONEL PILKINGTON: May I at the same time ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the greater portion of the offal derived from the milling of corn imported into and ground at Liverpool is exported to Denmark and other countries; and whether, having regard to the effect of the cost of railway carriage of these feeding stuffs on the British farmer, he can take any steps by legislation or otherwise for the reduction of the cost of carriage of feeding stuff's in England.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): The principal ports at which wheat is imported are Liverpool, Hull, London, Bristol, Manchester, Cardiff', Newcastle, Leith, and Glasgow, and most of the largest mills are situated in proximity to them. The quantity of wheat offal produced in the United Kingdom may be roughly taken at 25 per cent. of the wheat grown and imported, about 24,000,000 cwts. of offal. The exports of bran and pollard have only been stated in the Annual Statistics of Trade for the last two years. In 1900 they amounted to 811,000 cwts., and in 1901 to 1,200,000 cwts., and three-fourths of the export was to Denmark, the remainder going to Sweden and the Channel Islands. I have not had time to ascertain the information asked for as to the cost of carriage by sea and by railway respectively, but I will get it.
  MR. FLYNN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not the fact that the export of this offal to Denmark gives the Danish farmer a great advantage over the British and Irish agriculturist?
  MR. HANBURY: No doubt it does.

  Analysis of Artificial Manures.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has
  440
  been called to the fact that the sellers of artificial manures are enabled to obtain for them much more than their value owing to the method of stating analysis on trade circulars and price lists; whether he is aware that nitrogen is usually put down as ammonia or sulphate of ammonia, although one part of nitrogen is equal to 1·2 of ammonia or 4·7 of sulphate of ammonia; that potash is frequently stated as sulphate of potash or potash salts, although one part of potash is nearly equal to two of either of the latter; and that phosphates are stated as partly or mostly soluble, or the total phosphates and so-many parts soluble, instead of so many parts soluble and so many parts insoluble; and, whether, with a view to prevent purchasers being misled, he will consider the advisability of putting a stop by legislation or otherwise to such methods of stating analysis.
  MR. HANBURY: I cannot of course either confirm or disprove the statement in the first part of the Question. In the second and third parts of the Question the hon. Member no doubt refers not to the invoice but to the advertisement, and the practice referred to is, I think, less common in England and Scotland than he assumes it to be in Ireland. The vendor of any fertiliser in a quantity not less than half a hundredweight is required to send to the purchaser an invoice stating the name of the article, whether it is an artificially compounded article or not, and what is at least the percentage of the nitrogen, soluble and insoluble phosphates and potash, if any, contained in it, and that invoice acts as a warranty. It was considered when the I Act was passed that this afforded an adequate protection to the purchaser and I have as yet no sufficient evidence to show that this has not been the case. If the hon. Member will furnish me with evidence I will see if anything further can be done.

  Postal Employees and the Coronation.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as-representing the Postmaster General, whether he will arrange to give a general holiday to the employees of the Post Office on the day of the Coronation.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Postal and Telegraph arrangements on Coronation Day and the day following are still under consideration; but as soon as they are settled an answer shall be sent to the hon. Member.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether arrangements are being made for a holiday to be given to telegraph clerks, in common with other civil servants, on the occasion of the birthday of His Majesty the King; and also whether arrangements are being made for telegraph clerks to have a holiday on the two days which his Majesty has proclaimed as general holidays on the occasion of His Majesty's Coronation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As was stated last year in reply to a somewhat similar Question, only those officers of the Department who can be spared from their duties without expense or inconvenience to the public service will be able to enjoy the privilege of a holiday on the occasion of His Majesty's birthday. It has never been possible to grant this privilege to those whose attendance is required on the day in question, and it is not intended to make any change on the present occasion. The Postal and Telegraph arrangements for Coronation day and the day following are still under consideration.

  Telegraphic Communication in the Hebrides.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the telegraphic communication between the island of Barra, in the Hebrides, and the mainland has been interrupted for several weeks, and that during the past week it has completely broken down; and whether its immediate repair will be undertaken in view of the fact that the fishing season has now opened, and of the importance to those engaged in the fishing industry of the means of telegraphic communication.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware that the cable broke down last week, namely on the 21st ultimo. Although faulty during the previous week it continued working up to that date. The cable ship, after completing some work on which she was engaged and taking on board the necessary materials, left for the Hebrides on the 28th ultimo and the Postmaster General hopes that with favourable weather the repair will be effected by the end of the present week.

  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that none of the chief clerks in the offices of the Surveyors of Taxes in Ireland are graded in Section A, and that they are debarred from promotion to such section in English surveys owing to their lack of experience in English work; and whether he will have the matter inquired into with the view to the creation of some surveys in such section in Ireland, so as to give the Irish clerks the opportunity of promotion thereto the same as is enjoyed by the English clerks.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It would be out of the question to disturb the existing classification of Irish Tax Surveying Districts for the sake of creating surveys in which the Surveyor's first clerk would be graded in Section A. There is nothing to prevent an Irish clerk from obtaining a transfer to England if he thinks his prospects would be better in that country: and such transfers are as a matter of fact not infrequent.

  Salaries of Scottish Sheriffs.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what decision has been arrived at in regard to the proposed increase in the salaries of sheriffs in Scotland.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Increases of £200 per annum each have been sanctioned in the salaries at Airdrie and Lanark and of £100 per annum each in the salaries at Banff', Dunfermline, Falkirk, Hamilton, Paisley, and the two

  443
  Edinburgh districts. Against the increased cost involved in this arrangement, there will ultimately be a set off of £860 per annum due to certain amalgamations which are to be effected as vacancies occur.

  Cape Clear Island Fisheries.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a memorial from the inhabitants of Cape Clear Island was sent to the Congested Districts Board in April 1901, requesting that increased accommodation should be given for their fishing-boats, and that a reply was received from the Congested Districts Board in the following May to the effect that an engineer would visit the island and report on the proposal; and whether, in view of the fact that no engineer has done so, and that the inhabitants of that island suffer loss and inconvenience for want of a suitable harbour and anchorage for their boats, he will give the matter his immediate attention.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): In the absence of my right hon. friend, I have to say that the Board's engineer has visited the island. His Report will be considered by the Board at an early meeting.

  United Irish League, Mullaghdun Branch.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a band belonging to the Mullaghdun, County Fermanagh, Branch of the United Irish League was stopped on the public road leading to Belcoo on the 17th March ultimo by a policeman named Johnston, and that this policeman threatened to break the band instruments, and to turn the members of the band off the road; will he explain by what authority this policeman interfered with the liberty of these persons on this occasion?
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The members of the band, who were accompanied by a crowd, were requested not to play when passing the house of an
  444
  individual in Belcoo who, the hon. Member is well aware, has been held up to public odium, and subjected to rigorous boycotting and intimidation. This demonstration near his house was part of the system of intimidation to which he has been subjected. It was therefore the bounden duty of the police, under the circumstances, as conservators of the public peace, to prevent a hostile demonstration in the vicinity of the residence of this man. The police did not threaten to smash the instruments, or to turn the members of the band off the road.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: Was it the policeman who supplied the answer to the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir; the answer came in the regular course.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: From Johnston, the policeman.

  Belfast Orangemen—The "Bogey Clan."
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the existence in the city of Belfast of an organised body of Orangemen known as the Bogey Clan, whose members march through the streets and attempt to murder Roman Catholic citizens; whether he is aware that one of the local resident magistrates, himself a Protestant, has described the conduct of these men as the worst he ever heard of; and whether, in view of these and of previous disturbances in the streets of Belfast, it is intended to proclaim that city under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act.
  MR. ATKINSON: A gang of roughs,. estimated to number twenty-four or twenty-five, recently committed a murderous assault on a boy, who is a Roman Catholic. Twenty-one of the gang have been arrested. The resident magistrate described their conduct in the terms stated at the end of the Question. There is absolutely no foundation for the statement that the members of the gang belong to the Orange Society. Persons who break the law in Belfast are brought to justice under the ordinary law, and receive exemplary punishment. It is

  445
  not intended, therefore, nor has it ever been considered necessary, to utilise the summary jurisdiction clauses of the Crimes Act in that part of Ireland.
  MR. MACVEAGH: May I ask how the right hon. Gentleman knows that these roughs did not belong to the Orange Society?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question on the Paper has been fully answered. The hon. Member must not proceed to argue it.

  Galway Local Government Elections
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the date upon which the Local Government Board fixed the nominations for county and district councillors in the county of Galway; and whether he can state the date upon which notice of the said fixture, if any, was conveyed to the general public.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The Local Government Board did not fix the dates. This duty devolves upon the County Council and the Returning Officer, and the notice of election issued by the latter should specify the date upon which he will receive nomination papers. The Board has no information on these points.

  Disturbance at Annaghmore.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that attacks were made on the 16th ult. by an Orange mob at Annaghmore, county Armagh, on Roman Catholic residents of the village; that a young woman near her confinement was so maltreated that her life is in danger; that the authorities have been unable to take her depositions; and that on the same occasion a young man was mutilated beyond recognition; whether any of the men who made this attack have been traced, and, if so, why they are still at liberty; whether, as disturbances also occurred in this locality last Christmas, he will give immediate directions for the re-establishment of the police barracks which were recently closed;
  446
  and whether he will proclaim the district under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and direct that any trials which there may be shall take place before two resident magistrates.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): A prosecution has been directed against the ringleaders in this riot. Pending the hearing of the case, I must decline to enter into particulars of the occurrence, further than to say that I am unable to accept the hon. Member's representation of the facts as accurate. No disturbances took place at Annaghmore last Christmas, and it is not proposed to re-establish a police barrack there. The reply to the third paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Seeing that the lives of these two victims are despaired of, why have not their murderers been arrested?

  Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in the case of the highest grade of national school teachers, known as first of first-class, who, during the three years ending 31st March, 1900, had charge of small schools with an average attendance not sufficient to warrant their full class salary for the whole period, whether he will state on what basis their consolidated incomes were calculated, and to what extent were their vested rights to a higher salary safeguarded when subsequently appointed as principals to schools with an average of sixty, considering that under these circumstances they would according to the old rules, get full class salary and about double their former capitation and results fees; and will he also state how the income of a first of first class teacher is determined if he leaves a school with an average attendance of sixty and takes charge of one with an average of less than thirty-five.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The consolidated incomes of all teachers were fixed in accordance with Rule 36 (a) of the new Rules and Regulations which were laid on the Table of the House last session. (Command Paper

  447
  No. 601.) First of first-class teachers joined the new grades under Rule 37 (e). If such a teacher changed from a small school in which the average did not warrant his class salary to a large one in which the average would have warranted it, had the old rules remained in force, the case was specially considered by the Commissioners, and if the equity of the case was not, in their opinion, met by the general rules, they granted such a teacher what was estimated to be his "normal" income in the new school, or they granted an increase in his consolidated income equal to the difference of the rate of class salary which he was paid in his old school and that to which he might have been entitled in his new school. If a first or first-class teacher leaves a school with an average of sixty and goes to a school with an average less than thirty, but not less than twenty, he will be paid second-grade income only, and if the attendance at such school is less than twenty he will be paid third-grade income only.

  Convictions under the Crimes Act.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that Messrs. Michael Gormley and P. J. McDermott were convicted and sentenced to two months imprisonment each at a court held under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act in Ballymote on the 24th ult., for a offence alleged to have been committed nearly three months ago; and will he say whether the recently revived clauses of this Act are to be unlimited as to time in their retrospective operation.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): By the combined operation of Sections 2, 5, and 11 of the Crimes Act, prosecutions such as this, brought under Section 2, can only be instituted within six months from the commission of the offence.

  The "Waterford Star" Prosecution.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what sentences were passed by the Court held under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, recently held in Waterford, on Mrs. O'Mahony and
  448
  Mr. Lynam for publishing in the Waterford Star the proceedings of certain branches of the United Irish League in the County Waterford; is he aware that in the last quarterly Return of agrarian crimes from Ireland no case of offences against the person, property, or public peace is reported from the whole County Waterford; and will he say on account of what crime committed in the city of Waterford, or for what reasons, the city has been proclaimed.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The persons named were convicted on the charge of publishing matter inciting to intimidation. The proprietress of the newspaper was ordered to find sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, or in default to be imprisoned for two months without hard labour. The editor was sentenced to two months imprisonment without hard labour. On the application of defendants, the magistrates agreed to state a case. The quarterly Returns of agrarian outrages deal only with such crimes as may be classified under the various headings enumerated in these Returns. But these Returns do not take cognisance of cases of boycotting or of the large number of incitements to boycotting and intimidation. which are equally crimes against the law. I must refer to the statement made by my right hon. friend on the 17th April, in which he set forth the reasons for putting the Act in force in the several towns and districts selected.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it intended to imprison women in Ireland under the Coercion Act?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not send them to concentration camps?

  Returns of Irish Agrarian Offences.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Return of agrarian offences in Ireland, whether any similar Return is made relative to England, and what authority decides whether an offence committed in Ireland is agrarian or ordinary in character.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The English Returns are not classified so as to distinguish agrarian from non-agrarian offences. The Inspector General of Royal Irish Constabulary decides, after an exhaustive examination into the facts and circumstances of every outrage, whether it should be recorded as agrarian or otherwise, and in this he is assisted by an experienced staff, who have been engaged in this work for many years past.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right I hon. Gentleman aware that there is more: crime in one day in England than in a whole month in Ireland?

  Marlborough Street College, Dublin.
  MR. T L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have made any recommendations as to placing the Marlborough Street College, Dublin, in a sanitary condition; and, if So, whether any steps are being taken to give effect to such recommendations.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. WYNDHAM): Yes, Sir; an application was made to the Irish Government by the Commissioners in January last for a grant of public money to provide new buildings and equipment for this training college. It has not been found possible to entertain the application in connection with the Estimates for the current financial year, but the proposal will be considered with the Estimates for 1903–4.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But is anything being done to put the house in a sanitary condition?
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, Sir.

  Irish Land Sales and the Stamp Duty.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the practice at present existing in Ireland of charging stamp duty at the rate of 10s. per cent. only on the purchase money on the sale of a farm, subject to the rent, and an additional 10s. per cent. on the redemption value of the annuity payable to the Land Commission on the
  450
  sale of farms which have been previously purchased under the provisions of the Irish Land Purchase Acts: and whether he Government will introduce some measure to prevent this additional impost on the sale of farms purchased under the Land Purchase Acts.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The practice is as stated, and is in accordance with the general law, applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom, as contained in Section 57 of the Stamp Act, 1891. The reason of the difference between the two sets of circumstances is that in the first case the purchase money represents the full value of the consideration for the transfer, in the second it represents only a part of the consideration, and is exclusive of so much of it as is represented by the incumbrance on the property, the liability for which is transferred to the purchaser.

  National Library, Dublin.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the estimated cost of completing the East Wing of the National Library in Dublin; whether he is aware that this addition to the Library was planned in the architect's design as originally accepted, and that the necessity for its completion has been affirmed in the annual reports of the trustees for several years past.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The original estimate for the completion of the East Wing, including a bridge to connect it with the main building, was £4,900, but at least 25 per cent. must be added to this figure in view of increased prices of labour and material since the estimate was framed. The answer to the other Question is in the affirmative, but I understand that an additional room is now being made available, and will be ready for use next week.

  Tarmonbarry Rural Postman's Duty.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a rural postman named Michael Ganly, at Whitehall, Tarmonbarry, has to walk thirteen miles per day delivering and collecting letters for a wage of 5s. 6d. per week; and whether he will see that this man is paid a proper wage.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: According to the records of the Department, the length of the delivery in question does not exceed seven and a half miles, and for the distance, as well as in respect of the time occupied, the payment is correct according to the authorised scale.

  Limerick Postal Staff.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists locally with regard to the procedure being adopted in reference to the personal inquiry into the staff arrangements at Limerick Post Office; and will he, with the view of evidence being freely given, instruct the official conducting the inquiry to take evidence from the staff direct in person instead of placing an unsigned document on the notice board inviting complaints.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General thinks that it will be better not to interfere with the discretion of the officer conducting the inquiry into the arrangements of the Limerick Post Office.
  MR. JOYCE: What is the use of the inquiry if the staff are afraid to give evidence?

  Irish Salt Butter Industry.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, when he is dealing with the question of the standard of water in butter, he will see his way to safeguard the interests of the Irish salt butter trade so that nothing may be done that will injure or jeopardise this branch of industry.
  I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in the contemplated regulations respecting the percentage of moisture in butter, it is intended that a limit of 16 per cent. shall apply to Irish salt firkin butter; and, if not, can such butter be sold if it contains more than 16 per cent. of moisture, provided that a sufficient disclosure be made to the purchaser at the time of sale, as stated by the Departmental Committee in their Report.
  MR. HANBURY: I will answer both the hon. Gentleman's Questions at the same time. So far as regards the sale of salt firkin butter in Ireland, the Question is one for the Irish Office. In Great Britain the limit of 16 per cent. applies to all butter. I cannot express an opinion upon the legal point raised in the second part of the Question.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the vast proportion of the salt butter made in Ireland is sold in this country?
  MR. HANBURY: I quite understand that, and I am aware of the fact; but I gather from the evidence that there is no reason for the use of brine in this butter, and if salt were used instead, it would bring it within the standard.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an opportunity of discussing this question?
  MR. HANBURY: I have no means of doing that.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that insistence of the 16 per cent. standard will practically annihilate the Irish salt butter trade?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Education Bill.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, inasmuch as fuel and light and cleaning, repairs to buildings, rent, and rates, taxes, and insurance are given under separate headings in the official Returns of the expenditure of public elementary schools, he would consider his decision not to give, as a supplement to [Cd. 315], a statement of the total amounts paid under each of these heads for the year ended 31st August, 1899, at any rate as regards the items of rent and rates and taxes; and if he can now say whether he will be able to lay upon the Table, before the Second Reading of the Education Bill, a Memorandum showing its effect on previous legislation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the first part of the Question, I have to say that I am afraid it is impossible, as I am informed, to prepare such a Return in time to serve any useful purpose in the debate on the Education Bill. As regards the second part, a Memorandum was presented some days ago, and if it is not already in the hands of Members, it will be very shortly.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government that the grant under The Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, shall be paid to the local educational authority in respect of new schools not provided by that authority.
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that under the new Education Bill the local education authority will be charged with the duty of maintaining and keeping efficient all public elementary schools within their area, it will be permissible for the purposes of the grant, under Section 97 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870 (as amended by The Elementary Education Act, 1897), for the local authority to base an application for such grant on the average attendance at all the public elementary schools within their area, or on the average attendance at such schools only as are actually provided by them.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in case a County Borough Council adopts Part III. of the Education Bill and thus abolishes the School Board, the grant now paid to School Boards under Section 97, as amended, will, under those circumstances, be paid in future by the Board of Education to the new local authority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: These are questions of importance, which will, no doubt, come up for discussion on the Committee Stage of the Education Bill and I do not think there is anything to be gained by my answering them at the present time.
  MR. HUMPHREYS OWEN: Cannot the Government let us know what their intentions are?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, after all, these Questions as to the exact purport of the Bill and the intentions of the Government are really much better asked when they can be debated. As a rule, that is so; I do not wish to lay down any hard and fast practice, but on the whole I am disposed to think that this is the best plan.

  Status of the President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware of the feeling among commercial men that the Board of Trade should be placed in a position in no respect inferior to that of other Departments of State, and that the Minister in charge of the Department should be given the status of a Principal Secretary; and if in view of the fact that no opportunity has been afforded since 1899 of discussing in Committee of Supply matters relating to the Board of Trade, he will set down Vote 8 of Class 2 on an early one of the allotted days.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not admit the distinction which the hon. Gentleman attempts to draw between one Cabinet Minister and another. I do not think here is any foundation in fact for it. As regards the latter part of the Question, I would point out that he is labouring under a mistake. The whole of June 13th last was devoted to the Board of Trade Vote, and a division was taken upon it.

  The Council of Defence.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will place a Supplementary Vote upon the Estimates to defray the expenses of the Council of Defence, in order that the question of imperial defence may be discussed as a whole.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that the suggestion of my noble friend is one which can hardly be adopted. In the first place, there are no expenses connected with the Council of Defence, and

  455
  in the second place, the Council of Defence is, after all, merely a Committee of the Cabinet; and I do not think it would be a desirable thing—certainly it would be an extremely novel thing—that a day should be devoted to discussing the proceedings of a Cabinet Committee.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that Vote 12 for the Navy and Vote 13 for the Army will not be included in the block of Votes closured at the end of the session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course I will do my best to preserve from the final closure any Vote which the House at large desires to discuss, I will consider the particular application of that general principle in consequence of my noble friend's desire.

  New Rules of Procedure.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the Rules of Procedure being passed at this day's sitting, making Friday this week a private Members' day, he will move the necessary Motions for devoting that Friday to Supply.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg at the same time to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the importance of discussing the Rules of Procedure at a reasonable hour, he will, rather than lengthen the sitting after twelve o'clock, continue the discussion of the Rules on Friday, instead of engaging the House on the Second Reading of the Bill regulating the Sale of Ice Creams in Scotland, which has precedence on that day.
  MR. BRYCE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask whether, if the block of Rules which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed his desire to see passed this week is not concluded at twelve o'clock tonight, he will allow them to be continued tomorrow in order that they may be brought to a conclusion by the dinner hour on that day? Perhaps, by the permission of the House, I may venture to say that I
  456
  have every confidence that, if the arrangement which I suggest is made, that block of Rules, including the proposed Resolution transferring notices from Tuesday to Wednesday and Wednesday to Friday, may be, and will be, disposed of by the dinner hour tomorrow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he proposes one of those contracts which are always kept in this House, and which, I think, would be for the convenience of the House in the shape in which he proposes it. It is that the block of Rules which I have always said ought to be passed in the course of this week should be finished by dinner time tomorrow. If that be the understanding, I shall be glad, as far as I am concerned, to agree to it.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word. I am afraid my position in reference to this matter has been somewhat misunderstood. The other night I was unable, on behalf of my hon. friends around me, to give the pledge asked for that the block of Rules should be finished at this sitting. But I think the suggestion of the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen is a reasonable one, and, if the Government will abstain from moving the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule tonight, there will be no difficulty in finishing this block of Rules at an early hour tomorrow afternoon. As far as my hon friends are concerned, we should certainly, on the condition I have named, agree to the suggestion from the Front Opposition Bench.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Has the Leader of the House had any consultation on this question with independent Members on his own side who have taken so deep an interest in the new Rules?
  MR. LAMBERT: May I ask, supposing the arrangement were carried into effect, what business the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take after dinner tomorrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should imagine, Sir, that the House would feel that it had done its duty for the day, and would not be very much disposed

  457
  to enter on other business. As regards the Question of the right hon. Baronet, it is true that I have not consulted the one or two hon. Gentlemen on this side who have taken a particular interest in these discussions; but I cannot believe that they would set themselves against an arrangement which was evidently agreeable to the great bulk of the House on both sides.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman will not move the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the cir cumstances I do not propose to move the suspension Rule.
  MR. CHAPLIN: There is down for tomorrow a Motion in which I take a deep interest, shared by a great number of hon. Members on my own side of the House. It is to be taken at the commencement of private business tomorrow afternoon, and I have given an undertaking to proceed with it, if possible, tomorrow. Since the announcement just made, I have had, of course, no opportunity of consulting my friends, and I am in a position of some difficulty, because I understand that when the new Rules have been passed I shall no longer be in a position to bring this on, as I am under the old Rule. I am very reluctant indeed to stand in the way of the House, in regard to the proposed arrangement for tomorrow, by moving, as I undoubtedly have the right to do, this Motion at the commencement of private business; but if the right hon. Gentleman will give me the smallest assurance that I shall on another occasion have an opportunity of proceeding with this question, then without hesitation I will agree to the course proposed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand it the matter referred to by my right hon. friend is one affecting private business. It does not relate to any particular Bill, but only to the general Rule under which private business is done. I take it that if it is in order at the beginning of the afternoon sitting, it will be in order at nine o'clock under the new Rules, and
  458
  therefore I do not think my right hon. friend's chance of having a debate on it is in any way injured.
  MR. CHAPLIN: If that is so, I shall not stand in the way of the proposed arrangement for a moment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Are we to understand that only the block of Rules is to be completed to-morrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, but of course we must make the necessary Motion for the transfer of Friday's business.

TRANSATLANTIC SHIPPING COMBINATION.
[MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.]
SIR JAMES WOODHOUSErose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.: "The formation of an American Shipping Combination, for the purpose of controlling the Shipping Trade in the North Atlantic, and its effect on the Maritime and Mercantile interests of the United Kingdom ;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members have accordingly risen—
SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I am extremely reluctant to trespass on the indulgence of this House with regard to this matter, but I think that hon. Members on all sides will agree with me that it is one of very serious importance, and that it ought to engage the attention of Parliament. The forms of this House unhappily do not give a Member any other opportunity than the present one of bringing a subject like this under the consideration of the House. I need hardly say that it is in no partisan or polemical spirit that I venture to bring this matter forward. The interests which are involved are not Party interests, they are great national interests, and there is, both inside and outside this House, great misgiving, not to say grave anxiety,

459
as to what the effect of the formation of this shipping combination will be I need hardly say, too, that it is with no antipathy or ill-feeling towards the American people that I ask that this subject shall be considered today. I am sure I am expressing the unanimous feeling of this House, and of His Majesty's subjects outside, when I say that we have but one feeling towards America and its people, and that is a feeling of friendship; and we have but one rivalry with her, and that is to excel in the arts of peace and the work of civilisation.
What are the facts—the facts of which I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has now, at all events, official cognisance. I notice the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not understand a Government department in charge of what concerns the maritime and mercantile interests of this country allowing what is now taking place to be outside its official cognisance—it may be that the right hon. Gentleman understands those words in a technical sense, but at all events this country expects, and I am sure it will not be satisfied otherwise, than that the Board of Trade and the Government should have official cognisance of what is going on. Again I ask what are the facts? A great American combination has been formed, with a capital of avowedly £34,000,000 sterling, which proposes to acquire seven great shipping lines, with a tonnage of some 2,000,000 odd tons of shipping, and vessels numbering from 370 to 380. No doubt there have been very exaggerated assertions in the absence of an accurate statement of facts, both in the Press and by people outside. But whether or not this combination is so gigantic as at first it was hinted, it is sufficiently large and serious to demand the earnest consideration of all who are concerned in the future welfare and prosperity of the shipping and commercial interests of this country.
If the facts be what I have said, the question arises, what is the object of this combination? The object, it is said, is to raise freights, and to get control over the North Atlantic shipping industry. But we cannot overlook this fact, that the combination which has
460
been formed in this matter to control this shipping is a combination of capitalists who already control the great railroads of America, and the effect of that is that, controlling as they do the great railroads of America, they will be able to control the whole of the merchandise that passes over these lines, and eventually practically the whole Atlantic trade. It is said that this combination will only control at present about one-fourth of the shipping trade in the Atlantic. But that is not the point. The point is—What will be the effect of their at the same time controlling the railroads in America? The President of the Great Pennsylvania railroad is one of the principal owners also of one of these lines, and is one of the principal parties in the combination, and by reason of that fact they can obtain, on the railroads charges which would enable them to reduce, for the time being, the freight upon the lines, and so prevent any other competitors competing with them until they have run them off, and then they will be able to raise the rates, and in that way to injure the trade of this country. That is one aspect of the question which, I think, the House may fairly take into consideration. But there are also political interests involved. There are questions affecting the important mail contracts, and contracts with the Admiralty with regard to the auxiliary cruisers upon which we should like more information. We should like to know how the Government propose to deal with them. It is said that these vessels cannot, as the law stands, be transferred from the British flag to the flag of the United States without an Act of Congress. I grant that that is so. But we cannot forget the fact that four or five years ago a Bill was introduced into Congress which provided that where 60 per cent. of the interest in any vessel was held by American subjects that that should entitle that vessel to be placed on the American register. That Bill, it is true, did not pass Congress. But there would be no difficulty in a measure of that kind being again introduced and being passed, and if that were so it would entirely alter the position with regard to the combination. It is said that there is not going to be a sale of the great White Star

461
Line to this combination, but only a transfer or exchange of shares. That, however, means practically the same thing, in so far as its effect upon our commerce and upon our great industries are concerned.
My real object in bringing this subject under the attention of the House is to elicit what the Government really know and what the view of the Government is with regard to this combination, and to allay public anxiety by showing that the Government are seriously alive to the possible and probable effects which attend a great combination of this character, and to the dangers affecting our mercantile and maritime interests. I also want to know what steps they propose to take in order to deal with it, because it is not the effect at the immediate moment that is so important, but as to what is going to be the effect in the future. It is impossible not to see that in the future it may have a serious effect upon the trade of this country. The Americans are gradually capturing our industries; they have captured our shoe industry, and they are seriously affecting our steel industry. Some of those who are interested in this great combination already control more than 70 per cent. of the total output of steel in America, and the formation of other great trusts is prejudicially affecting the price of food and other products, and the question is how far we are going to allow this to spread. I noticed that, in a leading article in The Times the other day, it was said that this combination was the natural effect of a cause, and that the cause was the lack of energy and efficiency on the part of British merchants and those interested in British commerce. There are, no doubt, those who believe that this country has reached the zenith of its industrial strength, and that in the future our course will be downwards and not upwards—that our trade will not only decline but decay, and that eventually America will be the centre and seat of the Anglo-Saxon race. Personally, I do not indulge in, neither do I believe in, these jeremiads. I believe there is still life in this country, and that there are men, who will be able, by the exercise of greater skill and greater activity, to cope with the overwhelmingly prodigious natural advantages that America possesses. I was pleased to see an hon. Member who sits for a Division in this House in the
462
Labour interest, and who has recently paid a visit to America, the other day addressed his fellow-workmen and pointed out the advantages which labour-saving machinery had produced in America, urging upon them that, if they intended to cope with the great natural advantages possessed by America they must get rid of a lot of the notions they had hitherto entertained and apply themselves with greater industry, skill, and activity to the adoption of American methods. That was very sound advice which cannot too soon be accepted and acted on. We are now face to face with a combination which may affect our trade interests, and what we wish, and what I am sure the House and the country wish, is to feel that the Government of the day are thoroughly alive to the situation. In order to elicit that and to allay public anxiety I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir James Woodhouse.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This is probably the last occasion upon which the House will have an adequate opportunity of Calling attention to a matter of urgent public importance, unchecked by the limitations which are to be imposed under the new Rules. I have received many representations urging me to take some action in this matter, and I do think the question which has been raised is one which ought to engage the attention of His Majesty's Government. Indeed, I think it ought to have received their attention earlier. It ought not to have been necessary to make this Motion. The situation calls for spontaneous action on the part of the Government. The President of the Board of Trade has said he has no official information. What is the use of a Minister of State, if in regard to matters of importance he has to divide himself in two, one half to be official, the other unofficial, and the unofficial half alone to be aware of such important in-formation? I cannot understand such a condition of things.
I am going to ask another question. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has communicated with the Foreign Office in regard to this matter.

463
Is it not a fact that the Foreign Office has been fully informed upon this matter for weeks? Has the Foreign Office pigeon-holed the information, and if so, why? I am perfectly certain in my own mind that the Foreign Office has had this information for weeks, and I believe they had it from the same source as that which gave it to the German Foreign Office. The only difference is that whereas the German Foreign Office promptly acted upon the information His Majesty's Government have taken no steps at all.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Government never said they had taken no steps.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman says the Government never said they had taken no steps. If they have taken any, I hope the House will know tonight what they are. The difficulty in debating this matter is that so far we do not fully know the facts. We do not really know what has happened. We have been told that 370 ships representing an aggregate of 2,000,000 tons have passed into the hands of this combination. I take it that when mention is made of 2,000,000 tons, it must be intended to include the German ships as well as those which concern us, which latter, I should suppose, would represent some 700,000 tons. Now we are told that the British ships have not been sold and that all that has occurred is that the shares have been sold. The ships have not been sold but the shares have. We are also told that the shares have not been sold but have simply been exchanged for other shares. In other words the English shares in the White Star Line are henceforth to be represented by the American scrip of the Navigation Syndicate, and we are told that these ships are, nevertheless, to fly the British flag. I cannot comprehend this, because the Merchant Shipping Act is very precise as to what shall or shall not be a qualifying ownership to enable a vessel to fly the British flag. Are we seriously to be told that the White Star Line has handed over the whole of its shares to the Navigation Trust, and has received in return scrip of the Navigation Trust,
464
and that, nevertheless, there is no change in the status of the ships which those shares represent? The controlling power resides in an American State, and the dominion over the property—which is of the essence of the property itself—is in the Navigation Trust of this American combination. Are we seriously to be told that nevertheless the property in all those ships remains British in the true sense of ownership as contemplated by the Merchant Shipping Act? This seems to me to be absurd, and quibbling with words. When once the operation which I have described has taken place I say that the whole control of and dominion over those ships has passed into American hands, that the true ownership of those vessels has become no longer English but American, and that, according to the Merchant Shipping Act, those ships have no longer any right to a British register. My right hon. friend told me that he is not aware of any ships being on the British register which were owned by foreigners.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, I did say that.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: But it is notorious that there are many. The Standard Oil Company owns such ships. The Leyland Line is owned by Americans and yet it is on the British register. I may mention also the Atlantic Transport Line, the National Line, and the Red Star Line, which last runs, I believe, under the Belgian flag. This is notorious to people interested in shipping, and they are fully aware that there are a very considerable number of ships on the British register which do not belong to British subjects at all, but belong entirely to foreigners. Here I think the Board of Trade have shown themselves remiss, because although they are the protectors of the British register they have not protected it, but have allowed colourable declarations to show that these ships belonged to British owners, when as a matter of fact the owners were foreigners. When transactions such as I have described have taken place I say that in essence and effect the ownership of those ships has passed to aliens, and that those vessels

465
are not entitled to be on the British register any longer. If I am right I do not see what register they would at present be entitled to be upon. They would not be entitled to the American register, and if not entitled to British register then they would be outcasts with some of the attributes indeed of the pirate. They would not be entitled to clearance or reception in any English port, and would be liable to forfeiture. I is, therefore, most important that we should know the precise facts, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel at liberty to state at any rate such facts as have been communicated to him so far as to enable us to understand the exact position in which these ships will be placed. I need not say that when these ships have lost their British register nothing will be easier than to rapidly pass a law in the States enabling them to obtain an American register.
But all this raises a most important question, and it is how far these transactions are likely to affect the carrying trade of Great Britain, which is the backbone of the prosperity of this country. Standing as she does in a central position among the nations of the earth at the crossing of the sea routes, which are the cheapest routes, the easiest routes, and the ever open routes, which two-thirds of all trade always takes, I say that, established in that position, England is in a commanding situation for conducting the carrying trade of the world. She has done this in the past with the greatest possible success, and anything which constitutes a menace to that trade constitutes a greater menace to the future of England than anything which can threaten our agriculture or even our manufactures. You may fail in agriculture, you may be beaten in manufactures so as to lose in that your supremacy, but so long as you command the carrying trade, and therewith the power of taking toll upon all that moves on the face of the earth, so long will England be a great and principal nation in the world. But lose that and you lose that which is most important to you. It is, therefore, highly important that we should know whether there is any latent threat in what has recently occurred. Let me remind the House that it is not the Atlantic trade alone
466
which is immediately in question, because these ships trade not only across the Atlantic but also across the Pacific, and they go to New Zealand and Australia.
The Atlantic trade, however, is the most important carried on across the sea. In the year 1900 the imports of the United Kingdom amounted to £523,000,000, and of this total £139,000,000 or 27 per cent. came from the United States. Our exports for the same year were £534,000,000, and, of this total £37,000,000, or 10 per cent. went to the United States. During the same year our total trade inwards and out-wards with all the world amounted to £877,000,000 and the total trade between this country and the United States was £176,000,000 or 20 per cent. This is more than twice as much as with France, and nearly three times as much as with any other country in the world. What now will be the effect of this change? First of all there will be the effect on the subsidised cruisers. Although the Admiralty deny it, I believe that the subsidised cruisers may escape their obligation to the Government. I do not, however, attach much importance to this, because in my opinion the principle of subsidies was always wrong, for it ties the Government up to a vessel which, when war breaks out and you want her, may have become obsolete and her mountings for armaments will certainly have become obsolete, and I never have believed in Subsidising cruisers of this sort.
But although I do not attach very great importance to this, there is a certain amount of importance in the situation that will be created if the crews of the vessels controlled by the Navigation Trust should belong to the Royal Naval Reserve. You may have a bogus owner at Liverpool and other places making a bogus delaration, and when you have this Navigation Trust controlling every movement of these ships, and exercising complete dominion over them it is absurd to pretend that they are anything else but American ships. What will be the position of Naval Reserve men under these circumstances. Assuming they have become American ships, are we to continue paying retainers and yearly sums to the crews of those American ships as members of the Royal Naval

467
Reserve? The Secretary to the Admiralty has a Bill now before Parliament with regard to the Naval Reserve which is very cognate to this question. He proposes that the Admiralty should make Naval Reserve men out of the men serving on any sort of ship of any nationality and register. At the present time he can only enrol men serving in ships on the British register, but he proposes to leave the Admiralty at liberty to enrol any men to the Royal Naval Reserve in whatever ships they may be serving. I do not think that is safe, and I hope he will only extend his power to ships registered in the British Colonies and the dominions of His Majesty, and not take them from any ships of any other nationality.
Now it is quite clear that this tremendous operation has not been conducted for mere amusement. It has been done for profit to the American Company at the expense of the English companies who have been swallowed up by this great "combine." The House will remember that this "combine" already has large control of the railways of America, and that the intention is to make the same great combination control the shipping trade. What does this mean? It is clear it means that as soon as this Navigation Trust has got control of these ships, what it will do will be to give them special rates for all the freight they bring to or receive from the American railways—that vast system which covers the American continent. I think, if we may judge from the experience of the past, that they may also have a special premium on cargo carried, and possibly even preferential customs rates, for pressure will be exercised to give an advantage to ships within the combination at the expense of others which are not. Everything that is gained by this combination of ships and railways will be gained at the expense of the carrying trade of England, and that, I think, is a very serious aspect of the question. Of course I know there is this to be said, that those ships cannot possibly carry all that is to be carried across the Atlantic. I do not know what proportion the combination lines will carry, but it will probably not be very large, and, consequently, other ships will be left on the road for some time. But it will only be for some time. In the course of time the Shipping Laws are to
468
be under revision in the United States with one sole object, which is to increase the number of ships of the United States at the expense of this country; and, undoubtedly, the great feature and menace of this combination is that it does seem to propose in time to drive the British tramp, not only out of the Atlantic, but also out of the Australian and Pacific trade. I am not a very great advocate for Government interference in shipping matters. I think the Government has scarcely ever interfered with the Mercantile Marine of this country except to its disadvantage. Minute inspections are ordered often by incompetent persons who ordain things which are rather against shipping than for its good, such as the prohibition of use involved in the load line, and the prohibition of deck loads which can be carried with perfect safety in summer, a prohibition which has driven many ships from the British flag to the Norwegian flag because of the interference of the Board of Trade. I am not blaming the Board of Trade, or the President of the Board of Trade. It is the law that is to blame. In my opinion the effect of that law has been in most instances, and in none more than in the rules for tonnage measurement, to give an enormous advantage to the steamboat over the sailing ship, and to prevent the sailing ship from competing on equal terms. The effect of that has been to raise the freight of the sailing ship, and to raise the freight of the competitor steam ship, and since everything we consume is liable at one time or other to be carried, when you raise freights you raise the price of everything consumed in the country. Take again the rule of the road at sea. Every sort of mistake has been made, and I am afraid will continue to be made, so long as the Government interferes with the mercantile Marine. But this is a matter in which we are certainly entitled to ask some assistance, or suggestion, or proposal from the Government. We are at least entitled to expect that the Government should have knowledge of the matter, and such knowledge as it is at liberty to give to Parliament. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say that

469
he knows all about it, but that the matter is of so confidential a character that he cannot impart it to the House. If he does say so, I hope he will give a specific answer to the question I have asked, whether the Foreign Office was informed of the combination, and why the Foreign Office has not imparted its intelligence to him.
Of course one will be asked—What can the Government do? It is quite clear, as the First Lord of the Treasury suggested today, that neither the Government nor this House could interfere to prevent a man from selling his shares in any company to anybody he pleases. That is certain, I do not think you can do it; but there are many other ways, direct and indirect, in which the Government might interfere to prevent so serious a thing as the loss of our carrying trade, which seems now to be directly menaced. I do not know whether it will long be possible to continue on the old lines on which we have stood with regard to the mercantile marine and trade generally. We have had revived, not indeed Protection, but a charge of 4 per cent. ad valorem duty on corn and flour brought into this country; and to that extent agriculturists will benefit. That suggestion might apply to something of the same sort in the shipping trade. That which you have done for the land you might conceivably do for the sea; that which you have done for farmers you might conceivably be able to do for shipowners. There are means by which that can be done, but it is not for me to say what the specific thing is that should be done. There is the experience of this country which we can look to. You have within the last few weeks revived a system that was brought an end to in 1869. Now you may be brought face to face with the possibility and even the necessity of reviving a system which was brought to an end only in 1849—I mean the navigation laws. If we are to be attacked in that most vital of the country's interests, our shipping trade, I think it behoves the Government to consider how long it can stand by the ancient ways, how long it can adhere to the policy of laissez faire et regardez passer, and divert its attention from
470
these matters. When the navigation laws were repealed in 1849, it was I expected that we were to be on the eve of universal peace, and we were engaged giving up everything. But they were most important and effective laws while they lasted. They encouraged British trade, and Adam Smith says they were the best of all the commercial regulations of England. These laws prohibited the importation into these kingdoms of any goods, the growth or produce from Asia, Africa, or America, except in British ships, of which three quarters of the crews were British subjects. These were restrictive laws, but they did help to build up the mercantile marine which then, as now, was threatened. It was being competed with, not indeed by America, but by Holland, and competed, with most effectively. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a suggestion as to what the Government ought to do let him turn up his Adam Smith and look into the navigation laws once more. After all, as I have said, this debate is rather one for inquiry of His Majesty's Government than anything else. We do think that in a matter of this extreme gravity, which has aroused so much attention in the country we are entitled to expect the Government shall have some information to communicate to the country. We are further entitled to ask the Government, as authoritative exponents of the law, what is really the effect of what has been done on the shipping and other national interests. Thirdly, I think we are entitled to ask whether the Government are prepared to adopt any new step in the very serious conjuncture that has arisen, and which constitutes, as I believe,. a grave menace to the important carrying trade of this country.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASUBY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I rise at once to express a hope that this debate may be brought to a close as soon as possible. I quite recognise that, when the public outside are so much and so rightly interested in these new developments as they are, it is only natural and perhaps only proper that there should be some reflection of that interest in this House, and I do not, therefore, in the least desire to offer any criticism upon the course the hon. Gentleman opposite

471
has taken, and, indeed, as I hope the hon. Member noticed, his request for leave to make the Motion for adjournment was not challenged on this side of the House. At the same time, I am afraid it is impossible from the nature of the case that the present discussion can have any useful result.
My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Government generally have been reproached for having what is called no "official" information on the subject to impart to the House. I think there is considerable fallacy underlying the use of the word "official." Our information of what goes on in foreign countries is official when it comes from our ambassadors. It does not mean on that account that information is not obtained. Our ambassadors very often do not get their information from official sources. They get it, as we all pick up I information, in the country and among the community in which we live, but when it is communicated to us that is called official information. It is evident we cannot get official information of what goes on in this country unless it is something that falls under the purview of Government officials—the police, Government inspectors, or other officials of Government Departments. Butthere is no official of a Government Department naturally cognisant—I mean in the course of his duties—with the private transactions of British firms, witheachother's, or with foreigners'. Such information cannot be obtained in the nature of the case. The only way by which it could be obtained, would be to set up a system of inspection and perpetual cross-examination of members of the great mercantile community. Until the great mercantile community tolerates such an interference with their affairs and are prepared to give information to this inquisitorial body, it is clear that information of the arrangements of private individuals and firms must, in so far as it comes from the Government, be of a non-official character. But that does not mean that the Government have not had for many weeks their attention anxiously directed to the matter, or that they have not obtained a great deal of information on the subject, which may not absolutely cover the whole ground, but which, I think, is adequate both in general outline and
472
in its details. But that information, in so far as it supplements a matter of common and public knowledge, was given under the seal of secrecy. To ask us to break that seal would be asking us not merely to do that which honourable men cannot do, but which would shut up those very sources of information which it is most important should be kept open. If any gentleman who has access to private information comes to the Government and says, "There is something going on which you ought to know, but do not mention my name, and where you got the information from," and if that gentleman finds out afterwards that, under pressure from the House of Commons, we divulged the whole thing, it is quite clear that in future we shall not get that class of information which it may be, and is, for the highest interests of the country should be given to us in large and full measure. I hope, therefore, that neither the House nor the country will be under any illusion as to the fact that we have information and that, in so far as that information may be required to add to or supplement the broad general outlines of what is going on already well known to the public, it is of a confidential character and cannot, at the present stage of matters at all events, be with advantage given to the House. The House will further see that, as the Government are not neglecting this matter, as they are in communication with persons who are deeply interested in the matter, it really would be a great mistake at this stage of affairs to have a debate in the House upon it or to attempt to elicit more information than it is possible to give. I may very briefly say that it is quite clear from the speeches; that have been delivered, and indeed from the very nature of the case under consideration, that the subject is divided into two widely different portions. There is the portion which has reference to the position of the Navy and the mercantile cruisers which the Government have at their disposal in case of war. I think the House has been already told that arrangements have been come to by which those cruisers on which we have a lien by reason of the fact that we have given a subvention to them and which belonged to the companies which have joined the combination are safe. They are safe,

473
whatever may happen, for the term of I years for which the original contract was entered into by the Admiralty.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that they will be excluded from this arrangement?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I do not mean that. I mean that, for naval purposes, the control of the Admiralty over them will be as complete as if the combination had never taken place, and at the end of three years it is by no means certain—perhaps it is even by no means probable—that those ships will change their flag. We have thus secured our position for three years, and in those three years I think the Government will be very much to blame if they cannot find some means of adequately providing for the cruiser force of the country. Whether we are to provide for it by making new and different arrangements with regard to our mercantile cruisers, or whether we are to supplement our force in some other way, it would be quite premature to make a statement on the subject. But it is clear that we have time to turn round, and it will be the duty of the Government to see that, whatever injury may be done to other interests, at all events the efficiency of the Navy will not be interfered with. That is one branch of the subject, and, in my judgment, by far the easiest branch, which naturally falls within the duty of the Government to undertake. But when I come to the other branch of the subject, which has been referred to by both the mover and the seconder of the Motion, and which will be, no doubt, referred to by others in this debate—namely, the general effect upon our maritime position by what has taken place—we are evidently opening a subject of far greater difficulty and complexity than that which is touched upon by the mere question of naval cruisers, and are brought face to face with problems not only novel in their character but of very great difficulty and complexity.
I listened to the mover and seconder with wonder and interest in order to see whether they had any suggestions to make, and, if so, what they were and how they proposed to carry them out. Unless my attention wandered for a
474
moment, the mover made no suggestion at all. He did not throw out even the most shadowy hint of what he would like to see done, either by the mercantile community itself or by the Government in connection with the mercantile community, to deal with the new aspect of affairs which has arisen. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was not so reticent, not so absolutely barren in the constructive element. He had two suggestions to make. The first was that we should have a universal bounty upon British ships, and the other was that we should revive the old navigation laws. I am not going to enlarge upon the question of bounties or upon the merits or demerits of the navigation laws; but it is perfectly evident that to have a debate on those questions in connection with a problem which has only arisen within the last few weeks on a Motion for adjournment is not to further the sober, serious, and careful consideration of the very difficult questions with which we have to deal It is quite clear that those who think with the mover and the seconder that this combination—which, it is to be remarked, is not a Government combination, is not a commercial enterprise engineered and officered by a foreign and hostile Government, but is simply a trade combination of foreign capitalists—so menaces the commerce of this country that the Government should intervene and take steps to deal with it, are admitting, whether they like it or not, that the old doctrines of individual enterprise have broken down, and that the regimen of unrestricted competition, and of leaving each man to do his best in a free market to make the greatest profit he can, will have to be supplemented by a policy which a great number of Gentlemen in this House have long thought to be antiquated and outworn. I only mention this to show how big, how complicated, and how difficult are the issues involved, and I do not suppose that either my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, or anybody else who has spoken or is likely to speak in this debate, will expect that the Government are going to make any announcement in respect to a departure from the traditional policy of this country on the spur of the moment, without prolonged

475
and anxious investigation and without considering the problem from every side. Under these circumstances I would venture to suggest that nothing will be gained by any prolongation of this debate. Of the two aspects of the problem, one does not seem to me difficult to deal with, and the Government are bound to deal with it. On the other aspect of the problem—the more complicated, perhaps the more important, aspect—we certainly have no policy to announce, and I think we should show ourselves utterly unworthy to deal with the affairs of a great commercial country like this if we were to show ourselves such charlatans in finance as to come down here with a ready-made proposition to deal with a new situation.
MR. BRYCE: After what has been Said by the right hon. Gentleman, I will say only the fewest possible words on this subject. I am sure neither the mover nor the seconder of the Motion, nor any one else in this House, will blame the. Government for speaking with the greatest caution and reserve on this subject, and I should be the last person to wish to press them to go at all beyond what they have said through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman must admit that my hon. friend was justified, by the small knowledge which the country has on the subject, and by the great anxiety which prevails in all commercial and mercantile circles, in giving the Government the opportunity for making their statements, and of assuring the House that they are alive to the gravity of the questions which this combination has raised. While we should not now enter on any prolonged discussion of the very numerous and complicated issues which are involved, it may be stated that the Motion has not been brought forward in any hostile spirit to the Government, and I have no doubt my hon. friend will not be disposed to press it to a division, but will withdraw it when the object for which it has been moved has been attained. The right hon. Gentleman said with perfect truth hat there are two aspects to this question—the commercial aspect and the Naval aspect; and I am sure he did not exaggerate the extraordinary difficulty
476
of dealing with the commercial side of this question. It is extremely difficult, not only because we do not know the facts, but because we all know that the history of similar combinations in other countries shows how excessively difficult it is to deal with matters of this kind. We have already certain powers with reference to the registration of British ships which may or may not be put in force, but it is obvious that these powers go a very little way towards meeting the difficulty which these combinations bring about. These developments of commerce are the result of the creation of great masses of capital, and the operations of commerce on a gigantic scale in the countries where capital has reached its largest accumulation, and where the field is large. These things are not new across the Atlantic. It is now about fifteen years since the great system of trusts began to darken the commercial sky in the United States. During those years Congress and the State Legislatures have made every possible effort to grapple with and restrain the operations of these enormous accumulations of capital, and although it is dangerous to speak positively on so large a subject, I think I am safe in saying that all these efforts, under pressure of an extremely excited public opinion, which one at least of the great parties endeavoured to useand stimulate for political purposes, have had scarcely anysuccess, and that the power of the trusts continues to dominate American commerce at least as much as when these efforts began. That shows the extraordinary difficulty of endeavouring by legislation to interfere with commercial combinations under contract law. If these difficulties are great where we have only to deal with combinations in one country only, how much greater must they be where we have to deal with international combinations; and the political difficulty in the background must further complicate the problem. I should, therefore, be the last person in the world to ask the Government to make any immediate or definite promise as to how the purchase side of this matter should be dealt with. I am quite sure they will find, if they endeavour to consider legislation, abundant food for reflection in the trust legislation of the United States, and a warning, also,

477
not to attempt impossible or hasty legislation. Therefore, I say my hon. friend is not open to the comment of the right hon. Gentleman, because he is a private Member, and we, like himself, are imperfectly acquainted with the facts. It is for him to call attention to the case and give the Government an opportunity of stating their views on the naval aspect of the case. Then the question of subsidies becomes a very important one and it is not unimportant to observe that the German Government appear to have taken steps from the first for the distinct reservation of their rights, a reservation which does not appear to have been made as far as the British Government is concerned. There is also the question of the Naval Reserve and of our seamen generally, which is very important. I think the Government may fairly be asked to press on the inquiry, and to endeavour to state at no distant date what views they take and what practical steps they propose in regard to the naval aspect of the matter. I think I may say that the House will be ready, if legislation is thought necessary, to put aside other business in order to find a place for a matter which so vitally affects the commercial interests of the country.
MR. RUSSELL REA: I am glad this question has come up for discussion in this House, for it is one that has naturally, but, I think, somewhat excessively, disturbed the public mind, and it is well that any Member who is acquainted with the Atlantic trade and the circumstances that have led, and, I think, have inevitably led, up to the present international combination, should have an opportunity to state what has been done and how it affects the national interests. A great amount of alarm and suspicion has been excited in the public mind, and the Press has made it the question of the hour. This excitement and suspicion I regard as ill-informed and disproportioned to its cause, therefore mischievous. Perhaps this is best illustrated by the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who actually goes so far as to recommend a revival of the old navigation laws.
I should like to explain to the House, as shortly as I can, the conditions of the Atlantic trade that have made the present action of those who control the trade
478
natural and necessary. The lines which are affected are the great freight lines, the great cargo carrying lines. It is true that the White Star Line has a fine weekly mail service, sailing under the British flag, of which we have all reason to be proud, but they are also the owners of the largest cargo boats in the world—such a steamer as the "Celtic," for example, will carry ten or twelve times as much cargo as a mail steamer such as the "Campania" can afford to carry. In the differentiation caused by the expansion of this great trade, the mail steamers have ceased to carry any cargo but a small quantity of fine goods, and this is not what the originators of this combination aimed at.
The raison d'être of the great cargo lines is the conveyance of the crops, cattle, and produce of the Western States to Europe; it is from this source they derive practically their whole revenue. This produce is brought to the American ports by five—or, if you include the Grand Trunk, six—trunk lines—the Pennsylvania, Baltimore and Ohio, New York Central, Erie and Chesapeake, and Ohio Companies. Until a short time ago each of these lines was in the habit of making a separate arrangement with one or more of the steamship lines for the carriage of their produce destined for Europe. But, in the working, these arrangements proved to be very inadequate and unsatisfactory. The confusion, the delay, the cost of the exchange and transhipment of this enormous weight of produce, was a serious difficulty in the trade. The steamships were worked by their owners for their own ends, which were not always those of the railway companies—sometimes to compote with or embarrass rivals. As a consequence, it was not infrequent for sufficient cargo to be at the ports to load three steamers, and no steamer there to receive it. At other times three steamers might be together waiting for cargo. I have known one of the railway companies have as many as 1,000 great American freight wagons at the port waiting for a ship for a whole month.
This state of things, always embarrassing and costly, was naturally pronounced intolerable when the possibility of a remedy appeared in sight, and this possibility became clear when the four great trunk lines came under one management, and, so far as the public is concerned,

479
one undertaking—by far the largest and wealthiest commercial association in the world. When they considered the situation they determined that the through service to Europe should be organised in co-operation with the continental land services. This was a natural and inevitable development. The American Trunk lines are now so united that they form, so far as the outside public are concerned, one association. Their mind is one mind, and their policy is one policy. It was not humanly possible to expect they would submit, at the cost of infinite confusion and loss, to have their vast traffic, destined for Europe, interrupted at the ports, as for the present anarchy to continue. It is a vital matter for them to be able to direct the movements of freight steamers, to allot their ports, and fix their dates of sailing. It is equally for the advantage of the ships, for economy and efficiency in working, that this should be done. This was the problem, and it was the whole problem, that was presented to the directors of the Associated Railway Companies in America. The question of cruisers did not enter into it. How were they to solve it—by co-operation with the existing organisations or by competition with them? They chose—and I rejoice that they did choose—international co-operation, instead of a long, bitter, and costly competition. To the shipowners the same choice was then presented, and, so far as they were concerned, I must confess the choice was not quite so free. They were offered fair and even generous terms for an association of interests, and the alternative was practically extinction, so far as the trade in which they are now engaged is concerned. For, Sir, suppose for one moment the English Lines—the White Star, the Leyland, and the Dominion—had elected to compete with the new steamers which would have been built to be added to those the Americans already own—viz., those of the American Red Star and Atlantic Transport Lines—they would have been playing a, game in which their adversaries held all the trump cards. For—and I hope the House will observe this—not less than four-fifths of the freight revenue of all the great Atlantic cargo
480
lines originates on the lines of the Companies I have mentioned, and is under their absolute control as to its disposal; further, at least three out of four of the first-class passengers by these steamers are Americans, who would naturally give a preference to vessels under their own flag, other things being equal, if such were provided, and they would have been provided. And even the emigrant trade would not be under the control of the European lines, for I believe I am right—in fact, I know I am right—in saying that the passages of more than half the emigrants to America are paid by their friends in America; so that even this trade is controlled in greater part across the ocean. Therefore, I, for my part, am glad the English steamship owners accepted the alliance; and I believe they adopted, not only the prudent but the patriotic part under existing circumstances which were not of their making in doing so.
Doubtless the question arises in the minds of hon. Members.—Is it alliance and co-operation, or is it annexation and absorption? I say it is co-operation, and not absorption. The capital engaged in the united enterprise is not wholly American capital: it is largely British capital. I cannot give exact figures, but the House may take it that at present it stands at about four of British to five of American, and the American owned ships for the most part sail under the British flag. And there is no reason in the world why Englishmen should not, if they choose, purchase the small amount more necessary to give them a working majority. But since when have we objected to the investment of foreign capital in this country? Such an objection would come strangely from the nation having itself the largest foreign investments of any nation. And, at the present moment, our British investments in America are larger, infinitely larger, than any or all American investments in this country. Such an objective would be a preposterous self-stultification. There is no conspiracy to drive the Union Jack from the ocean, even from the Atlantic Ocean: there is no desire to do so. It is the interest of all concerned to maintain practically the status quo in this respect, the status quo cum

481
efficiency; but preposterous as I regard it, and as it is, for one moment allow me to assume that all these ships have hoisted the American flag, and come under American registration—what would be the effect of this in time of war? Take first the case of war with a European power or coalition. In this case our food supply would be secure, under a friendly neutral flag, our enormous common maritime interests, and the complications that would arise would almost certainly force America to our side, and we should be spared the necessity of policing the Atlantic. And in the case of the horrible and morally impossible event of a war with America, it would matter little under which flag these steamers might be, for they could not take the sea in their usual trades at all—that trade would be stopped, and these gigantic freight steamers are not fitted for other trades; few ports can receive them and load them, and no other trade could be organised in the hurry and stress of such a war.
But, Sir, I consider these speculations idle; the possibility of these ships changing their nationality is not within the range of sight. American opinion never was so strong against admitting foreign-built tonnage to their register as it is at present. But it will be objected that the object of America is not to naturalise foreign ships, but to build their own; and the Subsidy Bill of this year is a proof of such an intention. It should be remarked that the total amount of the subsidy was limited by the Senate to a comparatively small sum, so that its effects could not have been large, and it seems to have little chance of passing the House of Representatives. It is curious to notice, that the shipowners of America—and there is an enormous shipping interest engaged in what they call the coasting trade—complain that this "combine" has killed the chance of the Subsidy Bill of Senator Frye. But I would not undertake to prophesy that a similar Bill may not become law some day. It must be understood, however, that the theory and the calculation of those who designed and support it, is to give equality of opportunity to American and foreign ships, and I do not believe
482
the subsidies, under the scale proposed, would do more than this under present conditions. To begin with, an American built ship costs 33 per cent. more to build, and this adds this 33 per cent. to the expense of interest, depreciation, and insurance. The ship, under the American register, must employ American citizens as captains and officers and half of the crow. No American-born citizen will take employment, for example, as a fireman. The supply of firemen has to be kept up from the freshly-imported and naturalised foreigner. in the fireman's quarters of the American Line steamers, for example, you will hear little English spoken by the newly-imported citizens. Yet these men demand, and are paid, £,1 and £8 a month, as against about £5 15s. paid on English ships, and considerably less on German ships. To feed and wait upon these American citizens costs 20 per cent. more than to feed and attend to the English firemen. It is so all round. Therefore, it may be taken for granted that the American flag is too expensive a luxury to be indulged in to any great extent at present, and is likely to remain so for an indefinite future period. The experience of the American Line illustrates this well. The ss. "City of Paris" and "City of New York" passed to the American flag and register by special Act of Congress, which imposed upon the owners the obligation to build the "St. Louis" and "St. Paul," equal ships to the former, in America. The American Line have never found it to their advantage to build another ship in America, but they have built numerous other vessels in this country, which sail under the British and Belgian flags although they are American owned.
When, a few moments ago, I alluded to an American competition which would be effective, in fact irresistible, I had, of course, in my mind American owned ships, built in this country and sailing under the British flag, and registered in British Custom Houses, failing a compensating subsidy for American built ships. Were it the intention of this combination to change the nationality of the steamers they control, it would be greatly more to their advantage to adopt a Scandinavian or German nationality than the American. There is one curious point of American registration law, however, to which I have not seen attention called. None of these

483
onerous obligations attach to ships engaged in an entirely foreign trade, and never sailing from American ports. In this case, an American citizen may own and register a foreign built ship with a foreign crew. It is conceivable, therefore, that, if the combination were purely American, as it is not, and wished to do such a thing, which they do not, they might run the White Star service to the Cape and to Australia under the American flag, without incurring any obligations in consequence of the change.
But the portion of this question that chiefly interests this House is,—What will be the position of the country in connection with the subsidised cruisers of the White Star Line? In my opinion, the position must remain exactly as it is at present. If it is true that no notice of any change was given by the owners to the Admiralty, the explanation is clearly that no notice was required, because no change was made. The obligation as regards the present ships remains, and it will, doubtless, be fulfilled to the letter. And as regards new fast British mail steamers to be built in the future, why should not similar obligations be entered into, and in like manner fulfilled? The steamers will be none the worse because they are partly American owned. The ss. "City of Paris" and "City of New York" were American owned to the extent of 90 per cent. when they were built, but the British Government did not refuse to accept and subsidise them on that account. It is true that, in consequence of their foreign ownership, the Admiralty did make a somewhat different bargain from that made with the Cunard or White Star Lines. They held from two to three years pay in hand, to be forfeited should the nationality of these steamers be changed, and I believe this money was, in fact, forfeited. But the Admiralty made no rule that all British ships employed by them should have none but British owners. Why should they do so now? The fact that fast mail steamers are concerned in this combination is an accident of the scheme. Its essence and cause was the freight trade. At present they possess one weekly mail service sailing under the American flag to Southampton, and one weekly mail service, under the British flag, to Queenstown and Liverpool. This seems to me to be a fair working arrangement,
484
and so long as there are no signs of its being disturbed, I can see no cause for the public mind to be agitated. And this seems to me to be the basis upon which the international combination is likely to proceed, and, I believe, is one upon which it can probably be arranged that they shall proceed. I believe it is more probable that the mail steamers from Southampton will, in the future, sail under the British flag, than that the White Star mail steamers will ever sail under the Stars and Stripes.
Sir, Lord Melbourne is credited with the authorship of the advice to "take short views." This has always appeared to me to be a fatally false maxim in politics. If, instead of "taking a short view," we take a long view and a broad view of the situation presented to us, by this most natural, and in fact, inevitable development of commerce, I think we shall find little cause for dissatisfaction, and none for panic.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I venture to appeal to the House, for the reasons I have already stated, now to finish the debate?
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I am sorry to come between the right hon. Gentleman and the next business, but I will not detain the House long. From my point of view this is one of the most important matters ever brought before the House, because it may, I do not say it will, affect the whole trade and commerce of the country. As far as I can gather, our kinsmen across the water, who are very clever people, have got the control and management of this combine, or if they have not got it now they very soon will have it by getting hold of all the shares, no matter what flag the steamers run under. The possibility in that is that they will be able to land in this country the whole of the production of their enormous trusts to our disadvantage in great volume, and, therefore, at a cheaper price. I have taken the trouble to look up the number of these trusts, and I find that there are the Leather Trust, the Steel Trust, the Tobacco Trust, the Cotton Milling Trust, the Cement Trust, the Rubber Trust, the Lead Trust, the Beef Trust, the Goal Combine, and others.

485
Let the House imagine it being in the power, as it is now, of the railway companies to say to the owners of the steamers, "We will guarantee you against any loss you may suffer for the next three years as long as you take only the goods of these trusts." I conceive this to be a most important and anxious subject, and I am borne out in my ideas by the fact that every paper has taken the matter up, and there is no man interested in the trade and commerce of this country who does not hold the view that the result may be most serious to our trade and commerce. I quite agree with my hon. friend when he asks, "What can the Government do?" The Government cannot control any individual in the right to sell his own property. We can all sell our hats if we like, and the Government cannot stop us. They cannot stop any company selling their ships, but they can guide public opinion, and I disagree with my right hon. friend when he says it is unwise to bring this matter forward.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not say that.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: At any rate, my right hon. friend is not quite logical, because he said that the mover and seconder of the motion never proposed anything in mitigation of the difficulty, and at the same time said, as I understood him, that this is not quite the moment for the matter to be brought forward. The point is that we are gradually losing our commercial supremacy at sea and that is a very serious thing. Up to ten years ago we owned the shipping company with the largest tonnage. Now we run third in the list. I think that is a matter for serious consideration. It will be quite possible if this control of American trusts lasts for them to put in preferential rates, and that would certainly not be to our advantage at all. The matter brought forward by the hon. Member for King's Lynn is a very serious question, and we should be able to get cruisers somehow if we go to war. We ought to prepare in peace for what we shall want in war. If we lose our trade and commerce through these trusts and combinations we shall be in a position
486
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to think about, because he will not be able to tax the people to keep up the naval and military forces as they should be kept up. Why should we not grasp the possibilities that might occur and subsidise steamers to be built for the Canadian route and use that route? We are face to face with the fact that on the other side of the water there are 80,000,000 people with illimitable resources, and our only plan is to divide these 80,000,000 into two parts. My belief is that the whole of the American traders do not want to be under these trusts, and if we can start a line to Canada which will be shorter and cheaper, I believe those American traders and merchants who do not want to be under the trusts would use that line. One speaker called attention to the fact that American Steamers have the advantage of the coastwise system. A British steamer which goes to New York cannot ship a cargo there for San Francisco. I cannot see why we should not do something of that kind. I quite agree that it would be a very dangerous and difficult thing to bring back the navigation laws. We would like to have them, but how are we to get them? My right hon. friend made a very curious statement with regard to what is called "official information." It is not quite clear to me what my right hon. friend means. The use of such a term in the way it was used is very bewildering, because it is clear that the Government have never looked at or grasped this matter when they speak of "official information."
MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that he had expressly stated that, while he had no official information, he had information from other sources.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Why does my right hon. friend use a term which is so misleading and which has brought so much opprobrium on the Government, which it does not deserve? As far as I am concerned, I hope the question will be threshed out in the House, and that very shortly, because although public men cannot exactly put forward a definite line, still it is our duty to point out the results of what may occur when such

487
enormous interests are concerned. My own belief is that the Americans mean to control shipping. They begun with the ocean greyhounds and mail steamers, and I do not believe it will be very long before they take possession also of the tramps, and when they do that it will be a very serious thing for this country.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: My own opinion is that this is a storm in a teacup. If we look at the matter from a practical point of view we are face to face with this question. Granted that a certain number of American millionaires have bought up certain lines of steamships owned in this country, what would happen if they had not done that, but had put their money together to build vessels to run against our own lines? They have bought our vessels and intend to run them in the North Atlantic trade for this reason. They command the whole of the goods that come over the railways of the United States. They deliver those goods at Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York. The White Star Line has been building enormous cargo boats, and has practically depended on American goods supplying them with cargoes. Suppose Americans kept away from the White Star Line altogether and built other boats, where would the White Star Line look for cargoes? They could not get them. Thus the White Star Line has been practically forced into the combine. Things derogatory to this nation have been said. People are beginning to be afraid of the stability of the country. I am not at all afraid of it. Hon. Members talk about these vessels as cruisers. They are not cruisers at all. They tell us that these vessels go twenty or twenty-one knots, but that does not make them cruisers. Any boat might be called a cruiser if a gun or two were put on her. A pom-pom bullet would go through the hull of any of these vessels. I do not like to see the feeling growing that this country is going to the dogs simply because our steamers are being bought up. We can build others and beat the combine any day if our millionaires will join together. I see nothing to fear in all this. American merchants and brokers are
488
buying up British steamers, and let them do it. How can we stop them? You cannot do it. I want the House to look at this from a business point of view. I do not want people to run away with the idea that the Union Jack is being, lowered. Not a bit of it. It will not be lowered—it cannot be lowered. There has not been brought before this House in all this discussion a very curious fact which is well known to all my ship-owning friends. Take your Australian "ring" of steamers in this country and your African "ring." If you do not belong to that "ring" you cannot get a cargo. Surely that is monopoly up to the hilt. Therefore you have monopoly already in this country. Let us not blame this "combine," but let them buy up the whole lot, for we can build others and compete against them. I greatly deprecate the feeling of alarm which appears to be running through this House. I do not like to see it, for it is contrary to the patriotic feelings of true Britons.
MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I feel it my duty, as one of the representatives of Liverpool, to say one or two words upon this subject. I do not plead on behalf of those concerned with the "combine." I speak on behalf of the general public, and on behalf of some shipowners who are not in the "combine." I may say that there is a very great feeling of alarm and apprehension in Liverpool and throughout the country in regard to this matter. There is no doubt that we are very imperfectly informed as to the nature of this combination. The only statement we have is one from the White Star Line, in which they say they have entered into an arrangement for securing "community of interest." We have been told that this is not a sale. I venture to point out that whether it is a sale or not there is no doubt that the headquarters of this concern will be in the United States, and it will be practically a United States Trust. That is very important, and after the remarks which have fallen from the President of the Board of Trade and the First Lord of the Treasury I cannot help feeling that the subject has been approached in rather a theoretical manner. While we are talking

489
here this "combine" is acting, and they are putting pressure upon other Lines which have hitherto been independent to enter the "combine,' and they are offering very strong inducements, and threatening that if they do not join they will attack them. Therefore the question viewed from that standpoint is one of great urgency. What is the object of this? The object has been, clearly indicated in all the speeches. The object of this combination, in my judgment, is to obtain a monopoly of the Atlantic trade, and no doubt, following the course of other American Trusts, this trust will make use of every possible means to accomplish its end. If such a result is brought about, it will be most detrimental to English trade and commerce. It will transfer the ownership of much of our shipping to the other side of the Atlantic. If the ships become American, the crews will become American, and the supply of coal and the insurance will become American. We cannot realise now the extent to which there will be a transfer of trade of all sorts and descriptions from this country. Therefore I say it is a difficult and delicate question. I do not see how this House is to interfere, but I do not think we should shrink from realising the gravity of the situation. I think they have a perfect right of doing what they like with their own property within the law, but nevertheless, when the American Trust system is introduced to our shipping, it is calculated to bring about disaster. We should look at the question from two points of view. Firstly, from the general point of view, I believe we shall have to reconsider our policy with regard to the mercantile marine of this country. That is a matter which would require a great deal of time to consider and discuss, but while Nero is fiddling, Rome is burning. It seems to me, in the second place, that our shipowners outside the combination must arouse themselves and see in what way they can protect their own interests against those of this great combination. I agree that the only thing that the Government can do at this conjuncture is to strengthen the hands of independent lines and to endeavour, by giving their support to those companies who will refuse to transfer their business in any
490
way to the United States, to keep open those lines which are owned by patriotic men.
COLONEL PILKINGTON: My hon. friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool has put this matter very properly. It may be very well for hon. Members opposite and an hon. friend who spoke on this side to minimise the position, but all mercantile men know that it is most grave and serious. It will in my opinion spell disaster to the working class and to the mercantile class of this country unless this thing, somehow or other, can, let us say by good luck or good management, be stopped. How is it to be stopped? Somehow or other the German Emperor has stopped it. This question ought at once to be most seriously considered by the Government, and the reason why I have risen to speak is because I am not sure that the Government do take a sufficiently grave view of the matter. We are so accustomed to the doctrine of laissez faire, of letting everything go, and waiting till everything has gone, that I fear, unless the Government wake up quickly and lock the door before the horses are stolen, serious injury will be; done. One horse has been stolen from the stable, but how many more will be stolen? It seems to me that we must make a new departure. The shippingtrade of Liverpool will be seriously hit. The coal trade will also be seriously hit. What will happen if, after twelve months, we find that this great shipping combination has bought up more shipping companies in America? The steamship lines unite this Empire together, and the question in whose hands they are is one of imperial importance. I think when the Premier of this country is brought face to face with the Premiers of the Colonies, this question will be one of the greatest they will have to discuss. For any member of the Government to get up and say, "What are we to do?" is not the right position. The newspapers of the country are most rightly commenting on this most serious situation, and there is not a Member of this House who does not say that this is a most serious question. It is a national question. I do not think the men who have sold these ships have followed the example of

491
patriotism set by their fellow-countrymen who went out and died in South Africa. They have sold, I was going to say, some part of their country—no doubt to a friendly Power now, and one of our own blood. The more difficult the problem with which the Government find themselves confronted, the more attention they ought to give to it, with the view of doing something which may not only stop the alarm that is felt, but the disaster which I feel sure will come unless something is done.
MR. DAVID MACIVER: I happen to be the Member for that particular part of Liverpool which includes the docks, where the steamers belonging to the "combine," and those that do not, load and discharge their cargoes. I spent the best years of my life in the Liverpool management of the Cunard steamships. I had eighteen years association with that company; but I ought to tell the House that it is twenty-seven years since I had any such association. I have nothing to do today with any of the North American liners. I am speaking now entirely for myself, with my knowledge of the past; but I am still a shipowner, and I know pretty well what is going on. I find myself very much in accord with what fell from the hon. Member for King's Lynn, so far as generalities are concerned; but when he came to particular instances, I cannot help feeling that he has drawn a good deal upon his imagination. I know enough about the matter to know that my hon. friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Russell Rea) who spoke on the other side came very near the truth in the statements which he made. I think there is much more of cooperation than of absorption. There are certainly companies which have been absorbed, such as the Inman and International Line, the Leyland Line, the West India and Pacific Company, the National Company, the Atlantic Transport Company and several others. These have been absorbed, there is no doubt about that. It is a matter of public notoriety, and the story has been told in the press, but there is no proof whatever that the others have done anything more than make arrangements for friendly co-operation, and I maintain perfectly reasonable business
492
co-operation with the gentlemen who control the "combine." I should like to say that in my judgment there is absolutely nothing dishonourable in anything that has been done. It has been suggested, or even stated, that it is unpatriotic. I maintain, and I know it, that the gentlemen principally connected with this combine on both sides of the Atlantic are gentlemen of the highest personal honour and integrity. It is unfortunate that the trade between the two sides of the Atlantic has become much more of an American than a British trade. I am old enough to remember when it was difficult to get return cargoes from the United States. A combination between American railways and Transatlantic steamers is not a new thing. Thirty years ago I myself, with the general manager of the Boston and Albany Railway, bought many thousands of tons of Indian corn which belonged partly to the railway company and partly to the Cunard Company, which brought it to this country. Those days are entirely changed. The American system of protection under which they exclude our manufactures has every day lessened the importance of the trade from this country to the United States. Our worship of the Free Trade fetish has had the effect of enormously increasing the American control of the trade of this country. We take enormous quantities of American produce which might perfectly well be got from our own colonies and dependencies. This shipping combine is one of the messes in which our Free Trade system has landed us. I am one of those who believe, with my hon. friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool, that the time has come when at the earliest opportunity the whole question of the present position of British mercantile shipping ought to be reconsidered. British shipowners do not want bounties; but they want a fair field and no favour, and I do not ask for more than this. I should like to say one word on the subsidies to armed cruisers. I do not agree with the view of my hon. friend the Member for Gateshead, and still less do I agree with the view of my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn. I

493
am much more a believer in the view of the German Emperor. He knows how to have subsidised cruisers and how to retain them. We, with our system of Free Trade run mad, do not retain the control of our merchant shipping as I think we ought to do. The average shipowner who has no concern with armoured cruisers, and I am one of them, does not favour subsidies to his business competitors. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the average shipowner has any personal interest in seeing cruisers subsidised. I am therefore not speaking from the personal point of view: but I think it is strongly the interest of this country, in every way it can, to encourage the building of fast steamers and to retain the control, as the German Emperor retains the control, of them. I think on patriotic grounds it would be the greatest mistake to go back on the policy of subsidising cruisers. We must retain them, and the country must give enough to make it worth while for the great mail companies to build the right class of ships.
MR. CHANNING: I only wish to say on behalf of a good many Members on this side of the House who are interested in this question that they cannot accept the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury as in any way satisfactory or conclusive with regard to this matter, and that we shall claim on this side, and I have no doubt hon. Members on the other side will also, some opportunity for thoroughly discussing the economic and mercantile aspects of this great question.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he represented an important constituency and desired to say a few words in relation to the action taken by the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House the only two possible aspects of the way in winch he could deal with the question. What could he do more than he bad promised to do? Was the Government to protect ships because it had protected corn? There was no occasion for the Government to interfere. The conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman bad come to was that conclusion which every practical man
494
must come to. Unless we were prepared to shut our ports against foreign ships, or to subsidise our ships—a polity which, at all events, up till now no one had advocated—what could we do but look on and see the result accomplished. But there was no need for the country to take panic. By the operations of natural laws these combinations were ultimately bound to decay, and our shipping, which under the operation of the same laws had become the greatest in the world, would survive. Bounties and subsidies were not now the power in the shipping trade that they were. They had been tried by France and America for a longtime, but English sailing ships were in the past more numerous than those of any other country, and since steamships had come into existence English intelligence and energy had outstripped and left far behind all those countries who had tried to increase their shipping by bounties and subsidies.
SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEbegged leave, with the permission of the House, to withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW BILLS.
  PARLIAMENTAKY ELECTIONS (MARINERS' VOTES) BILL.
  "To enable Officers and Seamen of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and of the Mercantile Marine and Fishermen, to record their Votes when, by reason of their calling, they will be at Sea on the day of the Poll," presented by Sir Elliott Lees, under Standing Order 31; supported by Lord Charles Beresford, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Mildmay, Mr. Macdona, and Mr. William Allan; to be read a second time upon Friday, 9th May, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]
  NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN CHURCHES BILL.
  "To prevent the removal of Monuments which have been erected in Cathedrals or Churches out of Public Moneys in pursuance of a Vote by Parliament," presented by Sir Elliott Lees, under Standing Order 31; supported by Sir W. Anson, Mr. Butcher, and Sir Robert Reid; to be read a second time upon Friday,. 9th May, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]
NEW PROCEDURE RULES.
[THIRTEENTH DAY'S DEBATE.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The general policy we desire to secure with regard to private business, may be very briefly stated. We do not think it ought to take place at the afternoon sitting. The whole scheme of the new Rules has been framed with the idea that the afternoon sitting from 3 to 7.30 shall be devoted to important public business. That requires, as a necessary corollary, that the private business should go over to another sitting, and that should be the evening sitting. The idea is that such private business should have precedence of the orders of the day and notices of Motion at the evening sitting, and that as between different evenings the distribution should be made by the Chairman of Committees. Certainly no advantage ought to be given to the Government in the matter; neither should the Government be specially penalised. After all, the business of the Government is the business of the House. I think, therefore, that the distribution should be left to an official of the House like the Chairman of Committees rather than to the sweet will of promoters, which is at present the most anomalous and indefensible practice. From time immemorial, promoters have settled what day they were going to bring on their Bills without the least regard to the convenience of the House, or the Government, or the subject appointed for debate. The Government propose that henceforth the matter shall rest with the officials of the House, and I submit that this plan will meet the necessities of the case. I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That all Private Business which is set down for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, and is not disposed of by Fifteen minutes after Two of the clock, shall, without Question put, be postponed until such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
"Unopposed Private Business shall have precedence of opposed Private Business."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
SIR CHARLESDILKEsaid, with regard to all the Rules, that they had been imposed on the House by Members who took little part in the business of the House. They
496
were largely Whips' Rules, and not the Rules of the House at large. Contrary to the claim of the right hon. Gentleman, he held that this particular Rule of all others would defeat all certainty. Promoters objected very greatly to Bills being brought forward on Monday. Therefore Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays would be the evenings they would select.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They cannot select. The Chairman of Committees selects.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Did any one suppose that the Chairman of Committees would not pay attention to promoters? Whatever time they gave to private Members, give them that time with something like certainty. Under this Rule there was no certainty. The Chairman of Committees, who was appointed by the Government, was put in the most unpleasant, painful, and difficult position of having, for instance, in the week after next to decide between the claims of the Budget Bill and the claims of a Motion in which many Members were interested. The Whips would be appealing to him to place private business on the private Members' night, and, on the other hand Members would tell him that the whole House wanted the Motion referred to to come forward. He therefore objected most strongly to this Rule.
MR. GRIPPSsaid without in any way under-estimating the importance of private business, it was obvious that if it became a question between private and public business as to which should come first, the premier position must be given to public business. It could not be contended, so far as unopposed private business was concerned, that the position in which it had been placed was not good. It was the first business taken after prayers. With regard to opposed private business, it was a different matter. Under the Standing Order it could not be taken on the first day it appeared on the Paper, but had to stand over till the next. That was the strict rule, but as a matter of fact, those interested in promoting and opposing a particular private Bill met and agreed not to take it on that day, but on a subsequent day most convenient to themselves. It was intolerable that

497
anyone should have a power of that kind. At the same time, it was a great mistake to have the new Rule in the form in which it was, because inasmuch as under the proposal all private business had to be put down whether it could be taken or not, such a practice must inflict upon the agents and promoters and others interested unnecessary hardship in bringing them down to the House when their Bill could not come on. While recognising that as regards unopposed private business the new Rule was most convenient, he thought the arrangement for opposed private business required amendment. It left open the same conflict which existed now between private and public business, and important public matters would still have to be postponed to oppose private business.
MR. BLAKEsaid the House had already substantially sealed the fate of private business and of resolutions in the hands of unofficial members in agreeing that they should be taken at the evening sittings of the House. What he would desire most of all to see would be a fixed day upon which opposed private business should be the first order, but that could not be done now unless they took the time of private Members on Friday, which was too great a cost to pay. The Leader of the House had emphasized the fact that it was intolerable that important public business should be interfered with, and the cream of the day taken at the will of promoters of private Bills and a less effective Parliamentary day procured in consequence: but all these difficulties were exaggerated by the conditions in which the House now found itself, and the decision which it had already reached, which left no other chance whatever for private business. Because all these difficulties were felt when the House met at three and had all day to discuss important public and opposed private business. Now, the latter was relegated to the three hours evening sitting, and if it was a trouble and worry in the past when there was a whole day to work in, what would it be in the future with only three hours for both public and private business? It was obvious that the invasion of private or public business would be infinitely more serious. Again, what chance had any private Bill which came on at nine o'clock, with the attractions
498
of a dinner table far away from the House? Was the Chairman of Ways and Means to put it down as the first order at nine, or would he put it down at ten and leave an unfortunate man who had public business to address an empty chamber, whilst all the Members of the House were dining elsewhere? He showed that by the proposed method of distributing private business over the four evening sittings of the week the time available for private Members would be seriously curtailed, an added element of uncertainty would be imparted to the debates, and the Chairman of Ways and Moans would be placed in an invidious position by having the duty cast upon him of selecting the opposed I private business to be put down for discussion. So far as it was a question of the Chairman of Ways and Means impartially determining, with due reference to the convenience of the promoters and the other matters which were entitled to consideration, the day and the hour at I which private business should come on, that was one thing; he had the best knowledge that could be obtained as to the extent of the opposition and the probable length of the debate. But there was the further element of the impartial distribution of the business as between Government and private Members' time, S and, although he was perfectly willing to trust the Chairman of Ways and Means to discharge the duty honestly, the House were bound, when they placed that official in such an invidious position, for his own security as well as for the security of the House, to give a direction as to the principle upon which the distribution should be made. The House ought to state its intention that the business should be distributed impartially, with reference to time, between the four evening sittings, so that as near as possible as much time should be taken from the Government sittings as from the private Members sittings, proportionately to the number of sittings of each class, and that statement of intention ought to appear in the Standing Order. It was with that view that he had placed on the Paper an Amendment which in due course he should move. He believed the working of the proposals of the Government would demonstrate in a very marked manner that a mistaken method had been adopted in dividing up the time of the House, but, it having been decided that

499
there should be two sittings, and that no private business should be taken at the morning sitting, all that remained was to secure an equal and impartial distribution of the opposed private business, in point of time, amongst the evening sittings.
MR. CHAPLINthought he had a reasonable ground of complaint at the position this question was assuming. Earlier in the afternoon an arrangement was suggested to the effect that the Rules should be proceeded with that afternoon and concluded by dinner-time on Friday. An appeal was then made to hon. Members on that side of the House, who had taken an active part in the discussion of the Rules, as to whether they would concur in the proposed arrangement. He immediately pointed out that a Motion in which he was deeply interested, and which he had pledged himself to many hon. Members to bring forward, had secured first place in private Members' time on the following day.
MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman are hardly relevant to the Question before the House.
MR. CHAPLINsaid it was necessary that he should explain why he felt himself to be entirely absolved from any bargain which had been entered into.
MR. SPEAKER: I did not intend to prevent the right hon. Gentleman making a personal explanation with regard to what took place earlier in the day.
MR. CHAPLIN (continuing)said that he then stated that if he was assured that he would not be prevented going on with his Motion at the earliest opportunity, he would not dream of standing in the way of a general arrangement. To that his right hon. friend replied that he would be able to go on with the Motion on Monday or Tuesday evening. But it now appeared that he stood in a totally different position. Private Members were no longer to have any right to decide when their Motions should come on, but, having secured a place which could not be taken from
500
him except by a deliberate Vote of the House, he was now to be relegated to whatever position chance might determine, and his Motion would have to-come on whenever the Chairman of Committees, in his discretion, might decide. He had also another ground of complaint. The arrangement was proposed by the acting Leader of the Opposition. Under the arrangement seven or eight hours were left in which to conclude the discussion of the Rules. But hardly had the arrangement been suggested before one of the right hon. Gentleman's own followers rose and moved the adjournment of the House, with the result that nearly three out of those seven or eight hours had been lost. He did not blame the Government for that, but he did consider, on the two grounds he had named, he was fully within his right in considering himself absolved from any undertaking that had been entered into. As to the Rule itself, he understood the Leader of the House to say that opposed Private Business should be fairly divided between the different evening sittings. But that was entirely in conflict with the expectations which had been held out to them so far as private Members' evenings were concerned. In the course of the debates his right hon. friend had admitted that the petition of private Members would, in theory, be incomparably less favourable under the new Rules than under the old, but that in practice they would have the great advantage that once the Rules were parsed they would have the rights therein proposed and they would not be interfered with.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood his statement. What he had always said was that in his belief the Government would not be obliged to come down to the House and claim private Members' nights in the future as they had been in the past: but he had never suggested that he could arrange private business so that it should not interfere with private Members' time. On the contrary, in his opening statement he clearly explained that that must occasionally occur.
MR. CHAPLINsaid his right hon. friend made no exception whatever in that statement in favour of private business.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend did not understand my speech, and he is misrepresenting me now.
MR. CHAPLINsaid that was the last thing he should wished to do, but certainly the impression to which he had referred was conveyed to many other Members as well as to himself. On the ground he had stated to the House he should feel bound to oppose the present proposal.
MR. BRYCEassured the right hon. Gentleman that much interest was taken in his Motion, and that those for whom he spoke were very anxious that he should have an opportunity of moving it. As to the particular Rule before the House, he felt the difficulty of making any arrangement other than one such as was suggested. The proposal, however, had serious drawbacks. In the first place, when private business came on at nine o'clock very few Members would be present, and the result would be that Members would be "lobbied" into attending to support or oppose a particular Bill. In the past they had frequently had short practical discussions on private Bills, the case for and against had been clearly stated, and Members had voted according to the merits of the Bills as disclosed by the discussions. In the future that would not be the case. There would be very few Members present other than those who were pledged the one way or the other, and private and printed statements of the promoters or opponents would have more effect on the fate of a Bill than the debate in the House; in other words, the House would no longer sit as a judicial tribunal on the Second Reading of such Bills. Another point was that if the Chairman of Ways and Means was given the power of deciding the particular night on which private business should come on, he would have a far wider power than had hitherto been exercised by promoters of interfering with private Members' time. Up to the present, private business had come on shortly after three o'clock, and,
502
as the sitting extended normally until midnight, even if a private Bill occupied as long as a couple of hours there would still be time for a private Member's Motion to be adequately discussed. But under the new arrangement, if a Bill which came on at nine o'clock was discussed until half past ten, the time left to unofficial Members would be so short that, according to present usuage, it was extremely doubtful whether Mr. Speaker would feel justified in accepting a Motion for the closure at the conclusion of the sitting, and thus no definite result would be achieved. This was not merely a question between Government nights and unofficial Members' nights; it was a question between different unofficial Members. The Chairman of Committees would have before him a number of opposed private Bills to allocate to particular nights. He would look through the Order Book of the House to see what Motions were down for the different nights, and he would have to decide when the opposed Bills should come on. But the effect of putting opposed private business down for a Tuesday or a Wednesday would be to kill the Motion that stood for that particular day, and that was an extremely difficult position in which to put the Chairman of Committees. He would probably have to consider which Motions were likely to be of the greatest general interest; certainly a very invidious task would be placed upon him; therefore the present solution could not be looked upon as being at all satisfactory.
MR. BARTLEYsaid that between nine and ten o'clock the House would be in a state of semi-suspended animation, and if a division was taken on a private Bill during that period and forty Members were not present the Bill would stand over for the next day and the next business would be taken. He could not conceive how any system of private legislation could be carried on in that way; nor could he understand how the House was to go on in that state between nine and ten o'clock. It was an impossible state of things. Nobody would come to the House until ten o'clock, and private Bills would be seriously affected.
MR. A. J. BALFOURreplied that almost every point which had been raised could be raised upon specific Amendments to the Rule. If hon. Gentlemen would accept the Amendment he had proposed, he did not think they would find themselves shut out from raising any of the matters which they desired to discuss latter on.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that private business should stand over until nine o'clock, but there was nothing in the Rule to prevent the Chairman of Committees from putting it down for an afternoon sitting. Then there was the question of Motions for the adjournment of the House at evening sittings.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that was a matter which could be discussed on an Amendment which he proposed to move himself if nobody else did so.
MR. LODERsaid they should protect private Members' Bills on Fridays from the intrusion of private business, but he had no great sympathy with private Members' Motions at evening sittings. After Easter the Government would have three evenings, and private Members one evening. After Whitsuntide the whole of the evening sittings would belong to the Government, and then all private business would have to be carved out of Government time. He moved the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment made—
"In line 1, by inserting, before the word 'All' the words 'No opposed Private Business shall be set down for the sittings on Friday.' "—(Mr. Loder.)
MR. DILLON,in moving the next Amendment, said that whatever the First Lord of the Treasury had said in the speech which had been in dispute, there could not be the slightest doubt that he conveyed to the House the idea that the private Member by the new arrangement was going to get a certain amount of security. Instead of getting security of tenure the private Member was getting absolutely no certainty at all for his legislation.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words 'or for the Evening Sittings on Tuesday or Wednesday on which Government Business has not precedence.' "—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the question before them really was—Was all private Bill procedure to be taken at the expense of the Government time? They had already excluded Fridays, and now it was proposed by the hon. Member to exclude also the evening sittings of which private Members had possession. He quite admitted that there might be nights on which very important private Bills would be put down, and which would entirely oust some private Members' Resolution, but he did not see how that Was to be avoided as long as days consisted of twenty-four hours, and as long as they gave so much time to their Parliamentary duties. He was looking forward to the time when this particular work might well be delegated to some machinery outside the House, and, although this House would view with legitimate jealousy any attempt to take altogether from their purview private Bill legislation, yet he did believe they ought to find some other method than the present to facilitate the release from this burden. This was a subject which would be discussed by a Committee which he should ask the House to appoint shortly—either a Committee of this House or a Joint Committee of the two Houses—to help him to consider these matters. Before reaching that stage, however, he did not think that the whole burden of finding time for private business should be thrown upon the Government and the Government alone. He should only make one other observation, and it was this. He had a prevision that probably Motions for adjournment on urgent matters of public importance would be found more urgent on Government days than on private Members' days. Unless his long Parliamentary experience was at fault, he thought that would be found to be the case. He did not complain of that which he could not help, but he feared there would be a considerable invasion of Government time by the necessity, or rather the desire, on those nights to raise questions on Motions for adjournment.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Government would always be able to make a House when its business was to be considered at an evening sitting, but unless there was absolute certainty that particular matters in which a large number of Members were interested, would come on at an evening sitting, a private Member would not be able to make a House at all. If there was any uncertainty as to private Members' business coming on, the House would be counted out. The Leader of the House seemed to forget that under the new Rules they might fairly anticipate that the time devoted to private business would be far less than it had been in the past, because it was quite obvious that when Bills were brought on at three o'clock they were much more liable to continue under discussion than if brought on at nine o'clock. In connection with these private Bills, unless it was a matter of considerable importance, the amount of Government time consumed would be very small indeed. The new Rules had taken away largly the rights of private Members, and unless there was absolute certainty at evening sittings that their business would come on when it was put-down on the Paper it would be absolutely impossible to make a House.
MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid he was sure the intention of the right hon. Gentleman was as far as possible, both in the case of the Government and private Members, to secure a reasonable amount of attendance, but he thought a little more might be done than was done under this Rule. He suggested that up to Whitsuntide Wednesday evening might be kept free for private Members' Motions, subject to their being appropriated for Motions for adjournment. It should be remembered that private Members' Motions were balloted for long before, and that arrangements were made for bringing them forward. It was extremely hard and discouraging that there should be no time in the week on which they could reckon with certainty for the discussion of a really important question. On the other hand, he thought great advantage might be derived from devoting one evening a
506
week to private business and nothing else. They should have a certain time at which opposed private Bills were to be taken. There were certain questions affecting private Bills which must always be reserved for the final judgment of the House, and for the discussion of which time must always be found. He further suggested that one evening a week, say Tuesday, precedence should be given to private business, and if there was no private business other business could come on. The Leader of the House had stated that Motions for adjournment would be moved on Government nights. He believed there would be a strong temptation to move the adjournment on private Members' nights. Members who were not in favour of proposals contained in private Members' Motions, which raised matters of a controversial nature, would find questions on which they could move the adjournment of the House in order to prevent the private Members' Motions from being brought forward. He urged that a little more certainty should be given as to the days on which private business and private Members' Motions would be taken.
MR. HERBERT LEWISsupported the Amendment. The Welsh Members were a small section of the House, but they were occasionally fortunate in the Ballot. When they had been fortunate, the Government had rather ruthlessly taken away their days in the past. It was much easier to offend a small section of the House than a large section. The Chairman of Committees was being placed in a very-invidious position by the Rule, because although he might wish to exercise his authority as impartially as possible, the small sections of the House would be the sufferers. When a small section of the House, after persistent balloting for a long time, obtained facilities for discussing a question, the night on which it was to come on should not be taken away.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he thought there was something to be said for the suggestion of his hon. friend, behind him but he could not accept it in the form in which it was proposed. He was willing

507
to provide that the Government and private Members should share and share alike in protection from the encroachment of private business on the evening sittings after Easter and before Whitsuntide. He thought that should be regarded as a substantial concession on the part of the Government.
MR. DILLONsaid he should not like to proceed further with the Amendment after the concession which had been made.
MR. BRYCEpresumed that this meant that Wednesday would be safeguarded.
MR. GALLOWAYasked whether the intention of the Government could be carried out. Could private business be taken on Thursday night in view of the Standing Order already passed in regard to Supply, which said—
"On a day so allotted, no business other than the business of Supply shall be taken before midnight."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his hon. friend might have discovered a defect in the drafting, but the intention was clear that in future Thursdays should be what Fridays had been in the past. The Government never intended that private business should not come on Thursdays.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken all through of four evenings in the week, but it seemed clear that the words now proposed would exclude one evening.
MR. BRYCEsaid he thought that word "business" would be read as public business.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the proposal was new to him that Thursdays should be given to any other business than Supply. He did not accept the definition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. His view was that the word "business" extended to private business. If the intention of his right hon. friend was to leave Thursdays to the Chairman of Ways and Means, he would find he would want an alteration in the Order.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that paragraph 5 of the Supply Rule stated—
"On a day so allotted no business other than the business of Supply shall be taken before midnight."
He did not know whether he would be in order in asking Mr. Speaker for an interpretation of those words.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to ask me the meaning of these words, because they are contained in what is now a Resolution of the House. "Business" would seem to include all kinds of business.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that in order to make a difficult matter clear he should like, on a point of order, to call the attention of Mr. Speaker to the very first words of the old Rule, which contemplated the putting down of private business on Thursday. Would not that be in conflict with the present Rule?
MR. LOUGHsaid that in the Supply Rule, there was constant reference to "public" business. That seemed to indicate that it would be possible to take private business on that day also.
MR. DILLONsaid that the question which was now being discussed did not affect the Amendment before the House.
MR. CHANNINGasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would recall his own speech on the allocation of time on the 11th of April. The right hon. Gentleman then gave the House a carefully prepared time table showing what the result of the change would be.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not see how that arises on this question.
MR. CHANNINGsaid he was not going to refer to Thursdays at all, but was speaking on the Motion of the hon. Member to reserve Tuesdays and Wednesdays. In that speech the First Lord of the Treasury stated that the amount of time to be allotted to private Members on Tuesdays and Wednesdays would be the total amount assigned to

509
them on the two days, subject to a deduction for private business which might be transferred to those evenings, which he estimated at only eight hours during the session. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the calculation he gave to the House on the 11th of April did not contemplate a more liberal treatment of private Members in the allocation of time which would be taken from them by private Bill business than would he given under the Rule as now laid before the House.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that he understood that the First Lord of the Treasury had agreed to give private Members one evening up to Whitsuntide. Private Members would have two evenings before Easter, one of which was to run with the Government, but between Easter and Whitsuntide they would only have one evening, namely Wednesday evening, and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to reserve that evening for private Members.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he offered to give private Members one evening a week secure from private Bill business before Easter, but the hon. Gentleman now said that he ought to draught an Amendment so that that one evening before Easter should grow into one evening before Whitsuntide.
MR. CALDWELLsaid it was important to reserve the evening between Easter and Whitsuntide, as that was the period of the session during which private Bill legislation was most discussed.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was a matter of indifference to him whether he would protect the evening between Easter and Whitsuntide, or the evening before Easter, but he did not think it, was fair to ask him to protect both. If it were the feeling of the House that Wednesday evenings should be protected between Easter and Whitsuntide, he was quite ready to adopt that course.
MR. DILLONsaid in the circumstances he had better withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made—
"By inserting at the end of the last Amendment the words 'or for the Evening Sittings on Wednesday between Easter and Whitsuntide.' "—Mr. A. J. Balfour.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Rule contemplated taking private business on Thursdays. There would seem to him to be a direct conflict between that and the other Rule, as the word "business" was used in two different senses.
MR. SPEAKER: I gave my opinion without having an opportunity of looking at the whole context. I confess I should like before giving any conclusive ruling upon it, to look at the whole Standing Order.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if it were intended to leave the word "Thursday" in on the chance of its being right? He would suggest that when they were about to pass the Resolution making the Rules in Standing Orders, an opportunity might be given for making any verbal Amendments that might be necessary. (8.25.)
MR. GALLOWAYmoved to provide that the House, instead of the Chairman of ways and Means, should determine the time until which Private Business not disposed of by a quarter past two o'clock should be postponed. It would be found that the Standing Order proposed did not cover the whole ground, and the effect of it was that when a Private Bill was put down for any particular day, and an hon. Member who desired to oppose it simply said, "I object," the Bill would go down for the next day. It had been found in practice that it was not always convenient when the Bill was postponed that it should be taken the next day. There had been many cases in which the services of the Chairman of Ways and Means had been of great value in avoiding costly legislation. The practice had hitherto been that a Bill was put down upon a day agreed to by the promoters. Bills were often put down "By order" and

511
moved at a later date. That used to be a very common practice. A Bill used to be set down "By order," and moved to another day, entirely to suit the convenience of the agents. He denied that the convenience of the agents ought to be the primary factor in determining the days on which Bills should be taken. The House itself ought to determine the date on which Bills should; be taken, and it should not be left either to the Chairman of Ways and Means or the agents. He understood that these new Rules had been brought in to remove abuses in regard to the manner in which the business of the House was conducted and to correct and bring up to date the Standing Orders. Before the alteration now proposed was made it was the duty of the Government to show that there had been some abuse of this power, and that the present arrangement had led to some inconvenience. It was incumbent upon the Government to show cause why this power should be taken out of the hands of the House. There was only one solitary occasion upon which an abuse of this power had taken place, but surely that was no reason why the Government should come down and ask them to alter the Standing Order in this way. In practice the present system had been found to work well. His hon. friend who represented the Government would no doubt say that this alteration was necessary because in future they were going to sit under a time table. It would, no doubt, be argued in support of this alteration that if the time was not fixed they might have a division and the time table would be disarranged. If that was going to be the contention of his hon. friend it devolved upon him to show that there had been some abuse in the past. Let them consider for a moment the position of the Chairman himself. The Chairman of Committees was under the present system a partisan, and that might be a good or a bad system.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member implies that the Chairman of Committees acts as a partisan of the Government, he is not in order in making that statement.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he did not mean it in that sense, for he should be the last person in the world to make such a suggestion in regard to their present Chairman of Committees. What he was-pointing out was that the Chairman under this new Rule would have to exercise a function which might bring him into conflict with various political parties in the House, and he would have to decide between those various sections in the House as to which Motion should be sacrificed, and he would also have to decide upon which day private Bills should be taken. He felt that there had been no abuse of this Rule in the past, and they would do well to leave the decision of this matter in the hands of the House itself, and allow it so to remain until they found any abuse of the Rule. Then it would be quite time enough for the Government to take the authority out of the hands of the House.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, to leave out the words 'Chairman of Ways and Means.' and insert the word 'House.' "—(Mr. Galloway.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Question."
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid that if the Amendment was accepted, the Rule would read that any business not disposed of by fifteen minutes after two o'clock, and without Question put, shall be postponed until such time as the House may determine. It seemed to him that that would be an absolutely impossible system. How could the House determine without Question put? There would be no Motion before them. He was perfectly sure that his hon. friend did not intend to attack the present Chairman of Ways and Means. His hon. friend seemed to be somewhat mistaken in regard to the present practice. The Rule of the House was that the promoters might put their Bill down for any day they desired upon the first occasion. How could any system be more ridiculous than that? If a promoter had got a bad case, of course he would put his Bill down upon a day when he thought there would not be

513
many Members present, and if he had a good case for a Bill, he would put it down when he thought there would be a good attendance of hon. Members. He thought that was a very bad arrangement indeed. The Rules of the House said that if anybody objected, the Bill was to go over to the next day, not to such day as the House should determine, so that the promoters really determined the day on which it should be taken. They fixed the first day, and if anybody objected, it wont over to the next day. At present promoters could do as they liked. He submitted that it would be impossible for the House to determine the matter at all. He could not accept the Amendment.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid his hon. friend had, either intentionally or innocently, misrepresented part of the Standing Order already adopted. It was true that as regarded postponement there would be no Question put, but there was another distinct question, and that was, to what day the business should be postponed. The conduct of the business of the House had always been in the hands of the House itself and his hon. friend's Amendment only seemed to him to carry out the ancient traditions of the House. The Chairman of Ways and Means had a great deal to do, and great responsibilities upon him, but it did not belong to him to settle the business of this House. That belonged to the House itself, and he would vote for the Amendment.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsuggested that the day to which the business should be postponed should be left to the decision of the Leader of the "' House, as more truly representing the opinion of the House. Still he preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member to the Rule as it stood. He did not think the Leader of the House would utilise his position to act unfairly towards a Motion in which a considerable section of the opinion of the House and the country at large was concerned. He would not act upon party or political considerations, because he would always be subject to public opinion. On the other hand, the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means held a party
514
appointment. He came from the Treasury Bench to take the Chair and when he left the Chair he returned to the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member was sure, that anyone occupying that position would do his best to be fair, but it was impossible for him not to be influenced by political considerations. It was intolerable that he should be placed in the position of being a judge one day and a politician next day. He very much regretted that the Leader of the House was not in his place when this important matter was under discussion. There were twenty-two Cabinet Ministers, and it was scarcely respectful to the House that not one should be present when matters vitally affecting the interests of the House were under discussion.
SIR. ALBERT ROLLITsaid there were vast interests involved in the private Bill business which came before the House, and he thought it was quad-judicial business which had serious claims upon their consideration, costing, as it did, local authorities and others such enormous sums—three-quarters of a million a year. The Chairman of Ways and Means was in close touch with those in charge of and those opposing private Bills, and it would be better to leave the matter of time to his decision than to that of the House, which was very often ill informed for such a purpose.
MR. BRYCEthought that a Committee on the lines of the Committee of Selection should be appointed for the allotting of the time of private business. If such a body sat for three or four days, they would probably find a way of doing this better than the Chairman of Ways and Means, who would be placed in a somewhat invidious position by having this duty thrust upon him. If it was left to the Chairman of Ways and Means, then he should be advised by a small Committee.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that as between the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-West Manchester and the proposal of the Government he should be inclined to support the Government. He favoured the plan which had been suggested by his right hon. friend

515
of appointing a small Committee to assist the Chairman. The Chairman would supply the knowledge, and the Committee would ensure the detachment which was desirable in dealing with business of this kind. It could not be decided by the House, because the decision of that body would be the decision not of those who had listened to the debate, but those who had been brought in by the division bell and who were dependent on the advice of others as to the way in which they should vote.
MR. LOUGHexpressed a hope that the House would agree to the proposal of the Government as it stood. It would be, he thought, almost impossible to find an arrangement that would work so well. If it was left to the Chairman of Committees to decide, it would in all probability be arranged by his hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark, than whom, perhaps, there was no man more fitted for the task.
MR. HEMPHILLsaid the Rule threw an invidious responsibility upon the Chairman of Ways and Means, but he was unable to see how the sense of the House could be arrived at as the Amendment proposed. He suggested that the arrangements with regard to postponed private business be referred to the Committee of Selection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid the object of the Amendment he now moved was to save the promoters and others interested in a private Bill from the considerable expense they might be put to, if it was not made perfectly clear that, in the event of private business being postponed to another day, it should have precedence.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 4, after the word 'determine,' to insert the words 'and shall then take precedence over all other business except a Motion under the Standing Order relating to Adjournment of the House.' "—(Mr. Joseph A. Pease.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite ready to accept these words. I think we had an object lesson of the necessity of some such words in the Motion that was moved for the adjournment of the House from the Irish Benches to discuss the question of the proclaimed districts of Ireland. That was admittedly a proper subject to be brought forward in this form, but there was a private Bill down, and it is quite evident that, though that Motion for adjournment would have obtained precedence at three o'clock, when the evening sitting came on we should have been ousted from our position by this private Bill. Under these circumstances, I think this Amendment ought to be accepted.
MR. DILLONthought the Rule was too indefinite with regard to the time at which postponed private business was to be taken. Words ought to be inserted to guide the Chairman of Ways and Means in the matter. He suggested that the Amendment should run—
"Provided that such private business shall always be taken at evening sittings after any Motion for the adjournment of the House has been disposed of."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was absolutely in agreement with the hon. Member, and thought that his form of words better expressed the idea of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden than those which he had drafted.
Other Amendments made—
"By inserting, in line 4, after the word 'determine,' the words 'provided that such private business shall always be taken at the beginning of an evening sitting after any Motion for the adjournment of the House standing over from an afternoon sitting has been disposed of'—(Mr. Dillon); and by inserting, after the words last inserted, the words 'and that such postponed business shall be distributed as near as may be proportionately between the sittings on which Government business has precedence and the other sittings '—(Mr. Blake); and by inserting, after the words last inserted, the words 'at an evening sitting at which Government business has not precedence, no opposed private business other than that then under consideration shall be taken after a quarter past Ten of the o'clock.' "—(Mr. Caldwell.)
MAJOR RASCH(10.5.) MAJOR RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford) moved an Amendment limiting

517
the speeches on private business to ten I minutes. The hon. Member could not understand why any Member should desire to orate for more than ten minutes in the case of water, gas, sewage, or anything of that kind. The other night the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition both made almost complimentary allusions to himself on this question of short speeches, and appeared to agree with him; but unfortunately, with extraordinary unanimity, which was not often seen in the House, they went into the same lobby and voted against him. Though they agreed with him in the abstract, they differed from him in the concrete. Mr. Gladstone had said in the old days that he believed certain Members of the Opposition were accustomed to speak in favour of a Bill and vote against it in the lobby. He himself had done much the same thing in the past, with great benefit to his constituency, but he did not expect such treatment from the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. He thought right hon. Gentlemen ought to vote according to the views which their speeches indicated they held.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Question to add the words—' Provided that, during the discussion of private business, no Member do address the House for a longer period than ten minutes.'"—(Major Rasch.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether my hon. friend has in his pocket extracts from Hansard with which to coerce me; but certainly I do not accurately remember the precise phrases I may have used in former debates on the theme with which the hon. Gentleman deals in the agreeable speeches he makes on this subject. But the hon. Gentleman will, at all events, admit that neither the Leader of the House nor the Leader of the Opposition has any interested motives on the subject of private Bill legislation. Neither wishes to make speeches, even of ten minutes duration, on private Bills; and, speaking for myself, I do not remember ever having spoken on a private Bill. I am afraid, however, it would be impossible to limit the speeches on private Bills to the extent my hon. friend desires, because
518
I do not believe that a complicated case could be put forward within that limit. Though I do not doubt that most speeches could, with advantage, be confined to ten minutes, I do not think that the main contention against a Bill or in favour of it could, with fairness to the promoters or the opponents, be confined within those rigid limits. I sympathise with the desire of my hon. friend to limit the duration of speeches, but I do not think the present proposal, at this stage of our Parliamentary development, would meet with the general approval of either side of the House.
MR. BRYCEsaid that, while he could not claim never to have spoken on a private Bill, he thought he had never spoken more than eight minutes on such a measure. He was in entire sympathy with the object of the hon. Member; in fact, he had once voted for his proposal, but he was afraid that he could not support him on this occasion. This was one of the cases in which the time limit would expose the House to difficulties, because of the complicated nature of some private Bills. In view of the fact that sittings at which private business was to be dealt with would be short, he thought the general feeling at evening sittings among Members would be to shorten their speeches, though he agreed that, sooner or later, the House would have to adopt some limitation. It should not, however, introduce a new principle of such great moment on a small detail of this kind, and therefore he could not support the Amendment.
MR. RENWICKsaid that in previous debates on this subject much the same arguments had been put forward as those now advanced by the Leader of the House and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. Something more was wanted than the mere expression of a pious opinion. The House was prepared to make sacrifices to carry out the wishes of the Government in respect of the new Rules, and it was hoped that those sacrifices would lead to some real improvement in the conduct of debates. Until, however, they did something to shorten speeches, notwithstanding the passing of the Rules, the

519
business of the House would not be facilitated. It was no good saying that it would be dangerous thus to limit speeches, seeing that there was in existence a much more effectual method of shortening debate—the closure—by which Members were prevented speaking at all. Surely it was better to have a debate of brief speeches from several Members than to have discussion con fined. There were certain Members who seemed to think themselves qualified to speak on every conceivable subject, to discuss the erection of a labourer's cottage or the building and equipment of a warship, and to be equally at home in discussing the affairs of a parish council and the administration of the Indian Empire. Their opinion was not shared by the majority of the House, and new Members certainly thought it would be better to have shorter speeches, more to the point, than was at present the case. During the discussion of these Procedure Rules, it had often been said the privileges of private Members were being destroyed. He did not know what privileges they might have had beyond the privilege of voting, and that privilege they would still retain; but if certain Members had lost privileges to which they had been entitled for many years, they had themselves to blame; they had brought it upon themselves, and they would get no sympathy from new Members. He sincerely trusted the Leader of the House would give favourable consideration to the Amendment. ["Time."] It would probably take more than ten minutes to convince the House of the necessity for this alteration. Members were returned to the House to express the views of their constituents, and, whatever might have been the case in the past, a great number of Members now could speak, and, sooner or later, would assert their right to speak. In the future there would be still greater necessity for this Rule, because municipalities and County Councils were going in for trading on their own account, and their Bills would demand more and more attention.
SIR CHARLES DILKEthought the hon. and gallant Member had rather damaged his case by suggesting that the matter under discussion was the same as on a former occasion. As a matter of fact, the case was much stronger in this
520
instance, and several who voted against the Motion when last proposed would now be prepared to support it. When the proposal for the limitation of speeches was last made, it was suggested that only twenty minutes should be allowed, say, to the Secretary of State for War, when introducing the Army Estimates, or when replying to a whole night's discussion thereon. Such a suggestion could not be supported for a moment, and it was negatived by an overwhelming majority. Many Members who voted against that Motion, however, would be prepared to support a quarter-of-an-hour limit for speeches on private Members' evenings, when, in a short sitting, it was most important to have a brisk debate, with short speeches, so that a decision of the House might be obtained within the limited time at their disposal. With regard to private Bills, there was a strong case for allowing only two speeches, the one for, and the other against, to be of considerable length, while the rest were very short. The statement of the case in private business was a matter for two speeches rather than many, and as these Bills would assume increasing importance in future years, some such limitation would be necessary. From that point of view, he should support the Amendment.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid his hon. and gallant friend had the peculiar advantage—shared only by Members of the Front Bench—of having a conviction, and that conviction was that every question that came before the House ought to be settled with the same expedition as the drawing of a tooth—it should be done rapidly and painlessly. He apparently had the same feeling as the patient who, after having been dragged about the room for the greater part of an hour, asked the inexpert dentist whether he was paid by the job or by the hour. The seconder of the Amendment, however, had rather given the case away, because he had avowed that it was impossible to convince the House in ten minutes. As all Members spoke with the intention of convincing the House, it was useless, after that declaration, to proceed further with the Amendment. More elasticity was required on this matter than the Amendment allowed. There were times when those who did not usually speak

521
on private business had a desire to do so. For instance, on the Paper of that day, the London and India Docks Bill was down for consideration. He looked into the question early in the afternoon, and came to the conclusion that his duty might demand a speech from him on the subject. But when the right hon. Gentleman opposite got up, and sold the pass by undertaking that the Procedure Rules should be concluded by dinner-time the next day, he thought the East India Docks might take care of themselves. But supposing the pass had not been sold, was he to be restricted to ten minutes, during which time it was confessedly impossible to convince the House, even upon the question of the London and India Docks Bill? That would put an end to the whole object for which the House of Commons existed, viz., for the purposes of debate and the informing of the public mind.
MR. POWERsaid he thought any views coming from the hon. and gallant Member opposite were entitled to the consideration of Irish Members. He could not forget
the attention and courtesy which the hon. and gallant Member once showed to one of their respected colleagues who had now gone to his account. He was extremely sorry that upon this occasion his Irish friends could not support his proposal.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was quite clear, after what had occurred, that the proposal of the hon. Member was too stringent, and if he would add to his Amendment the words, "Except by leave of the House," he would support him.
MAJOR RASCHsaid he would accept the words suggested by the hon. Member for Poplar.
Amendment amended—
"By adding, at the end thereof, the words 'except by leave of the House.' "—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
(10.33.) Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there added."
The House divided :—Ayes, 94; Noes, 270. (Division List No. 161.)
The new Standing Order, "Private Business," as finally adopted, is as follows :—
That no opposed Private Business shall be set down for the Sittings on Friday or for the Evening Sittings on Wednesday between Easter and Whitsuntide.
All Private Business which is set down for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, and is not disposed of by fifteen minutes after Two of the dock, shall, without Question put, be postponed until such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine.
Provided that such Private Business shall always be taken at the beginning of an Evening Sitting after any Motion for the Adjournment of the House standing over from an Afternoon Sitting has been disposed of, and that such postponed Business shall be distributed as near as may be proportionately between the Sittings on which Government Business has precedence and the other Sittings.
At an Evening Sitting at which Government Business has not precedence, no opposed Private Business other than that then under consideration shall be taken after a quarter-past Ten of the clock.
Unopposed Private Business shall have precedence of opposed Private Business.

QUORUM OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question proposed:—"That at an Evening Sitting the House shall not be counted before ten of the clock, but if on a division taken on any business at an Evening Sitting before ten
526
of the clock it appears that forty Members are not present, the business shall stand over until the next sitting of the House, and the next business shall be taken."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he wished to make the intention of the Government perfectly clear. He moved to insert after the word "present the words "the division shall be inoperative and." He believed these words would only make clearer the intention of the Government.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, after the word 'present,' to insert the words 'the division shall be inoperative and.' "—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. FLYNNasked why a division expressing the sense of those present should be inoperative if Members did not care to come down to the House to discuss the business. The whole Rule was framed for the convenience of the dining-out Members.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Speaker what was the present Rule as to the effect of a division when a quorum was not present.
MR. SPEAKER: I believe it is operative although the Members are less than forty, but the House stands adjourned if it reveals that no quorum is present.
MR. BLAKEsaid it was very important that the effect of the words "it appears that forty Members are not present "should be made plain. Under the existing Rule as just interpreted by Mr. Speaker, the division would not be inoperative. This surely could not be intended. He asked what the view of the Government was on this matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member has asked the opinion of the Government on this subject, and I have no difficulty in giving it. Mr. Speaker has ruled that a division in which less than forty Members take part is still an effective division. I took a different view, no doubt quite erroneously. Let the House observe the absurdity of the existing practice. The existing practice is that the House is competent, when less than forty Members are present, to come to a decision, but that it is not competent to do any other business. Under the existing practice, as just laid down by Mr. Speaker, supposing you had a Motion of a most important character—let each Member invent for himself what he thinks a most important Motion—and supposing that there are thirty-nine Members present, and a majority voted for the Motion, then I suppose that Motion would be carried, but in the act of carrying it the House would declare itself incompetent to deal with a turnpike road. That is not rational or logical, and so, the Amendment being clearly necessary, I will accept it.
Mr. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that if the practice of the House were the same as the other House, a division which revealed less than a quorum would result in the adjournment of the House. In that case the Amendment would not be necessary. Last session there was a measure in which he took special interest, namely, the Factory Bill, and when it was before the other Chamber some noble Lords objected to it. There was some chance of a division being called, but the Lord Chancellor got up and called attention to the fact that there were only thirty eight peers present. If a division had been called, it would have revealed the fact that there was not a quorum present, and the House
528
would there and then have stood adjourned, the division having no existence.† If the Rules of the House of Commons Were the same on that point as those of the other House, the words of the amendment were unnecessary.
MR. SPEAKER: Since I have been in Parliament—and my experience has been much shorter than that of great many hon. Members—I have never known a case of fewer than forty Members voting. I did not therefore speak from any personal experience, and I am bound to say that I find there are several hon. Members of much longer standing than myself who are of a different opinion from that which has been expressed.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid that he remembered a case of a division in which less than forty Members took part. In that case the Speaker immediately declared the House to stand adjourned.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As the oldest Member of the House, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I do not remember a single instance in which a question was decided by less than forty votes.
MR. SPEAKER: In this matter I accept the authority of the Father of the House as greater than that of the Speaker, and I have no doubt he is correct.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that he understood the Speaker now to rule that all divisions in which less than forty members took part were in operation. That being the case, such a division between 9 and 10 o'clock would be of no effect, and it was unnecessary to add any words, and he therefore asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(11.8.) Main Question put.
† The House of Lords Standing Order (March 22nd, 1889) is :—" If, on a division upon any stage of a Bill, it shall appear that Unity Lords are not present in the House, the Lord Speaker shall declare the question not decided, but the debate thereon adjourned to the next sitting of the House."—[Ed.]
The House divided :—Ayes, 228; Noes,

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Holland, William Henry

Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

Allen, CharlesP.(Gloue., Stroud

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hoult, Joseph

Plummer, Walter R.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Rankin, Sir James

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bill, Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Richards, Henry Charles

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

Schwann, Charles E.

Caine, William Sproston

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

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

Channing, Francis Allston

Lee, ArthurH (Hants, Fareham

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Soares, Ernest J.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Stock, James Henry

Craig, Robert Hunter

Leng, Sir John

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lewis, John Herbert

Sullivan, Donal

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Thomas, David Alfred Merthyr

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wallace, Robert

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Edwards, Frank

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

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Weir, James Galloway

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whiteley, George (York. W. R.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Moss, Samuel

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

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

Grant, Corrie

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B Stuart-

Helme, Norval Watson

Parkes, Ebenezer

Younger, William

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Major Rasch and Mr. Renwick.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Doughty, George

Leamy, Edmund

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Duke, Henry Edward

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Allhusen, Augustus Hen'y Eden

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lough, Thomas

Arrol, Sir William

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Atherley-Jones, L.

Ellis, John Edward

Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Emmott, Alfred

Lundon, W.

Austin, Sir John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Macdona, John Gumming

Balcarres, Lord

Fenwick, Charles

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

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

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

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Ffrench, Peter

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Banbury, Frederick George

Finch, George H.

M'Crae, George

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Fadden, Edward

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Govern, T.

Bell, Richard

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Beresford, L'rd Charles William

Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon

M'Kean, John

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Bignold, Arthur

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Majendie, James A. H.

Bigwood, James

Flower, Ernest

Malcolm, Ian

Blake, Edward

Flynn, James Christopher

Markham, Arthur Basil

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Foster, PhilipS. (War wick. S. W

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Boland, John

Galloway, William Johnson

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Bond, Edward

Gardner Ernest

Mitchell, William

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Garfit, William

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Brassey, Albert

Gilhooly, James

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Morgan Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morrison, James Archibald

Brymer, William Ernest

Graham, Henry Robert

Mount, William Arthur

Bull, William James

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Green, WalfordD. (W'dnesbury

Murnaghan, George

Butcher, John George

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Murphy, John

Caldwell, James

Gretton, John

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry

Nicholson, William Graham

Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

Hammond, John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Cawley, Frederick

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

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

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

O'Connor James (Wicklow W.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Chapman, Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Charrington, Spencer

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Dowd, John

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

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

Henderson, Alexander

O'Malley, William

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Higginbottom, S. W.

O'Mara, James

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hogg, Lindsay

O'Shauglmessy, P. J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

O'Shee, James John

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Horniman, Frederick John

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Pemberton, John S. G.

Cranborne, Viscount

Houston, Robert Paterson

Percy, Earl

Crean, Eugene

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Power, Patrick Joseph

Crossley, Sir Savile

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pretyman, Ernest George

Dalkeith, Earl of

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Joyce, Michael

Randles, John S.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Kearley, Hudson E.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Delany, William

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Rea, Russell

Denny, Colonel

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Reddy, M.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Kitson, Sir James

Remnant, James Farquharson

Dickson, Charles Scott

Knowles, Lees

Rickett, J. Compton

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lambert, George

Ridley, Hon. M. W (Staly bridge

Dillon, John

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Doogan, P. C.

Lawson, John Grant

Robertson, Herbert (Hackne

524

525

Robinson, Brooke

Spear, John Ward

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Robson, William Snowdon

Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R (Northants

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

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

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Runciman, Walter

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Russell, T. W.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersf d

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Valentia, Viscount

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Young, Samuel

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Sinclair John (Forfarshire)

White, George (Norfolk)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

Whiteley, H. (Ashtonund, Lyne

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

AYES.

Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Finch, George H.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fisher, William Hayes

Mitchell, William

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Flower, Ernest

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

Arrol, Sir William

Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S. W

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Galloway, William Johnson

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gardner, Ernest

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Balcarres, Lord

Garfit, William

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Morrison, James Archibald

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin&Nairn

Morton, ArthurH. A. (Deptford

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

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

Mount, William Arthur

Banbury, Frederick George

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Beresford, Lord Charles Wm.

Graham, Henry Robert

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Nicholson, William Graham

Bignold, Arthur

Green, Walford D. (Wed'nsbury

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bigwood, James

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

Parkes, Ebenezer

Bill, Charles

Gretton, John

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hall, Edward Marshall

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

Bond, Edward

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Brassey, Albert

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hanbury, Rt. Hon Robert Wm.

Plummer, Walter R.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pretyman, Ernest George

Brymer, William Ernest

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bull, William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Randles, John S.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

Rankin, Sir James

Butcher, John George

Henderson, Alexander

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Ratcliff, R. F.

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Renwick, George

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

Richards, Henry Charles

Chamberlain, Kt Hon. J.(Birm.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

Hoult, Joseph

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Houston, Robert Paterson

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Chapman, Edward

Howard, L. (Midd., Tottenham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Charrington, Spencer

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Robinson, Brooke

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Russell, T. W.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Keswick, William

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Cranborne, Viscount

Knowles, Lees

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Crossley, Sir Savile

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Seely, Charles Hilton Lincoln)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawson, John Grant

Seton-Karr, Henry

Dairymple, Sir Charles

Lee, ArthurH (Hants, Fareham.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Denny, Colonel

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

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

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

Spear, John Ward

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Spencer, Sir E. (W, Bromwich)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Doughty, George

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Stock, James Henry

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Duke, Henry Edward

Macdona, John Cumming

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Thornton, Percy M.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Majendie, James A. H.

Valentia, Viscount

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

Malcolm, Ian

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

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

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Whiteley, H (Ashton und, Lyne

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

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

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

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hammond, John

O'Dowd, John

Allen, CharlesP. (Glouc., Stroud

Hayden John Patrick

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Asher, Alexander

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Malley, William

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Mara, James

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Holland, William Henry

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hope, John Deans (File, West)

O'Shee, James John

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Horniman, Frederick John

Partington, Oswald

Blake, Edward

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Boland, John

Joyce, Michael

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Kearley, Hudson E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Rea, Russell

Bryce, Rt Hon. James

Kitson, Sir James

Reddy, M.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Lambert, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Caldwell, James

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Leamy, Edmund

Robson, William Snowdon

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Roe, Sir Thomas

Causton, Richard Knight

Leng, Sir John

Runciman, Walter

Cawley, Frederick

Lewis, John Herbert

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Channing, Francis Allston

Lough, Thomas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lundon, W.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Mac Donnell, Dr. Mark A.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Crean, Eugene

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Delany, William

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

Sullivan, Donal

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Thomas David Alf red (Merthyr

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Crae, George

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Dillon, John

M'Fadden, Edward

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Govern, T.

Wallace, Robert

Doogan, P. C.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Weir, James Galloway

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Kean, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Edwards, Frank

Markham, Arthur Basil

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Ellis, John Edward

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Moss, Samuel

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

Ffrench, Peter

Murnaghan, George

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Murphy, John

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Young, Samuel

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Furness, Sir Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Gilhooly, James

Nussey, Thomas Willans

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryM.

Mr. Warner and Mr. Charle Hobhouse.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

137. (Division List No. 162.)
The new Standing Order, "Quorum of the House," as finally adopted, is as follows :—
That at an Evening Sitting the House shall not be counted before Ten of the clock, but if on a Division taken on any business at an Evening Sitting before Ten of the clock it appears that Forty Members are not present, the business shall stand over until the next Sitting of the House, and the next business shall be taken.

STANDING COMMITTEES.
Standing Order No. 47 read, as followeth :—
That two Standing Committees be appointed for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, which may by Order of the House, in each case, be committed to them; and the procedure in such Committee shall be the

533
same as in a select Committee, unless the House shall otherwise order: Provided, That strangers shall be admitted, except when the Committee shall order them to withdraw. Provided also, That the said Committees shall be excluded from the operation of the Standing Order of July 21st, 1856, and the said Committee shall not sit, whilst the House is sitting, without the Order of the House: Provided also, That any Notice of Amendment to any clause in a Bill which may be committed to a Standing Committee, given by any hon. Member in the House, shall stand referred to such Committee: Provided also, That Twenty be the Quorum of such Standing Committees.
Amendment proposed to the Standing Order—
"In line 7, to leave out the words, 'Provided also, That the said Committees shall be excluded from the operation of the Standing Order of July 21st, 1856.' "—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order."
MR. CHANNINGasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation of the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Amendment was of a very simple character. As put down in the first instance, the limit of time to which the Standing Committees might sit was 2.30; but when they altered the hour of Questions, and when the period at which the debate should begin was postponed until three o'clock, it seemed to him to be for the convenience of the Grand Committees, and not detrimental to any interest, that the time to which they might sit should be extended to three o'clock. He had taken the advice of Gentlemen acquainted with the working of the Grand Committees, and it was in accordance with their views that he had put down the Amendment, and he hoped the House would agree to it.
MR. DILLONsaid he strongly objected to the Amendment. It was another illustration of the tendency of the Government to drive the Parliamentary
534
machine beyond all limits of human endurance. He thought it was most inconvenient that men who endeavoured to do their duty on the Grand Committees should be given the alternative either to leave the Committees or be absent from Questions. That was most unfair. It would be most inconvenient to keep hon. Members in attendance at the Grand Committees while Questions were being asked. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not compulsory.] His experience was that Grand Committees would sit as long as they were allowed to sit.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid that the Chairmen's panel had considered the question. He would remind the hon. Member that it was often extremely desirable to finish a Bill, and thereby obviate the necessity of meeting again. In such circumstances, it frequently happened that the Chairman of the Committee came down to the House for permission to sit for half an hour longer.
MR. DILLONsaid that was only done by the general consent of the Committee.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid the Amendment would merely give the Committee power to sit on till three o'clock to finish their business if they wished.
MR. TOMLINSONsaid it was perfectly clear if the Amendment were passed that the Grand Committees would continue to sit until three o'clock. That would be the effect of the Amendment, and it was for the House to decide whether that was the result it desired or not.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid that at present Grand Committees adjourned at three o'clock unless special permission were obtained to sit until half-past three. That was the ordinary time for which leave was asked, because then Questions commenced. If the Amendment were passed in its present form, no Member of a Grand Committee would be able to be in attendance in the House during Questions. He begged to move to leave out the word "three" in order to insert "a quarter-past two."
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he thought that the First Lord of the Treasury would find, if the Amendment were passed in its present form, that it would be impossible to keep Members on the Standing Committees after two o'clock. He had served for many years on the Standing Committee on Trade, and he had also been added to the other Committee on many occasions. What happened was that if the Committee was approaching the conclusion of the Bill it was quite possible to get Members to stay for a few minutes in order to finish it, but if the rule were laid down that the Committees were to sit while Questions were going on, he ventured to say that the Committees would not be able to retain a quorum.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not think that the First Lord of the Treasury had made out any particular case for the Amendment. If a Committee desired to sit beyond the ordinary time, leave could be obtained as at present, but if the Amendment were accepted a large number of Members would be put to considerable in convenience as they would be expected to remain in attendance at the Committee while Questions were being asked. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the general convenience of Members.
MR. HARDYsaid, as one who had experience on Grand Committees, he wished to remind hon. Members that, unless some alternative were made, Grand Committees would be obliged to send down at two o'clock and ask for leave to sit on. It was almost impossible to get Members, especially legal Members, to attend before half-past eleven o'clock, and that only left two and a half hours per day for the consideration of Bills which might require a very long time to pass through Grand Committee. It seemed to him that it was not desirable that on every occasion on which a Committee desired to sit on, it should have to go through what was, unfortunately, sometimes a disputed point as to whether leave should be given or not to send down to the House for permission to sit on. It would be much better to fix some time during the sitting
536
of the House up to which Grand Committees might sit. The original time suggested by the right hon. Gentleman was half-past two, but it seemed to the Chairmen's panel that it would be desirable that the Committees should be allowed to sit until three o'clock, not with a view of always sitting, but in order to give that elasticity to the Rule which would enable a Committee to sit on if it were thought desirable. He would remind the House that, after all, the matter was entirely in the hands of each Grand Committee itself, and if any Member were to move the adjournment of the debate on the ground that Members should be in attendance in the House, he had no doubt that the Chairman of the Committee would agree to the Motion. He confessed he did not think the matter was worth a long wrangle in the House, but if the House was against extending the time to three o'clock, he hoped it would, at any rate, be extended to half-past two.
MR. BLAKEsaid the matter was of more importance than would appear. He attached the greatest importance to the respect with which the House should receive the deliberations and results of the Grand Committees, and he thought that a good attendance at the Grand Committees was one of the essentials. If the Grand Committees were asked to sit beyond a quarter-past two, it would be penalising hon. Members by asking them to discharge Grand Committee work, while putting them in the position of having to neglect their duties in the House itself. Sending the Chairman down for leave to sit on in order to finish the business in hand was a piece of elasticity to which he did not object, but if a Rule were made that Grand: Committees should sit until three o'clock, the result would be that they would be depleted of their numbers and bereft of their authority, and that the beneficial functions which they now discharged would be largely impaired.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought there was a little ambiguity in the Amendment. Perhaps he would be corrected if he were wrong. Under Standing Order 56 leave was given to

537
all Committees to sit during the sitting of the House, but by the present Rule that, leave was withdrawn from the Standing Committees. If the present Amendment were accepted, its effect would be to give Grand Committees the power to sit during the sitting of the House; but by a subsequent Amendment it was proposed to limit that right to three o'clock. He was not sure whether that was the best way of proceeding. He thought it would be much better to limit the time to a quarter-past two, when the business of the House commenced.
MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that if Members of the Grand Committees did not feel disposed to go on with the work, no Rule would be of any avail. He had given a great deal of time to the work of Grand Committees, both as a member and also as chairman at various times, and the whole, thing depended on the attitude of mind of the Committee. He differed from hon. Members who thought that it was a good thing to send down a member of the Committee to ask for leave to sit on more or less hurriedly at a particular moment. It should never be done except deliberately, and it was always best it should be done by the Chairman as the mouthpiece of the Committee. He thought that Mr. Speaker, if he might most respectfully say so, had laid down some very useful rulings with reference to the practice of asking for leave to sit while the House was sitting. He was one of those who lamented the change by which the House would sit at two o'clock, as it would have a most serious effect on the work of Grand Committees. He hoped hon. Members would not deceive themselves as to that. In his early Parliamentary days Committees used to sit without any interval for refreshments. That had all gone by the board now, and thirty minutes out of some three hours were given up to luncheon. If the Grand Committees were to make any progress it might be necessary to give them power to sit till three o'clock; but, of course, if a certain number of Members desired, as they would, to take part in one of the most important functions of the House, namely, the putting
538
of Questions, they could not be coerced into attending the Grand Committees. Therefore he was not at all sure that it was worth while making the change.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he would strongly appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury not to persevere in his proposal. He thought the effect of the earlier meeting of the House would be that Members on the Grand Committees would have to do without their lunch. That was not a very pleasant prospect, but that was what it would come to. Even under the present Rule, the Chairman put off the luncheon interval as late as possible, because after lunch the attendance was very scanty and the proceedings had scarcely any reality in them. If the Committees were to sit until throe o'clock it would be found that, in consequence of the absence of the lunchers and those who had Questions on the Paper, there would only be two or three Members besides the Chairman present, and what authority could the decision of such a body have? They must accommodate themselves to the new circumstances created by the new Rules. The Committees would probably have to meet at eleven and go on till about 2.30, and then Members would come into the House to put their Questions. There had been a general consensus of opinion against the present proposal, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not adhere to it.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEthought it would probably shorten the discussion if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to substitute 2.30 for three o'clock. That would obviate the necessity of an adjournment for lunch.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was in somewhat of a difficulty. He was not intimately acquainted personally with the working of the Committees, but from the information he gathered he was under the impression that they were in favour of the proposal of the Government. This was a matter of absolute indifference to the Government: all they desired to do was to meet the convenience of those who did this most valuable work for the House and the country

539
and who received less recognition than they deserved. It appeared, however, that three o'clock was thought to be too late. Would 2.30 meet the general wish of the House? [Cries of "2.15."] If that was the view of the House he had no objection. Did he understand it was the general view of the House? It was a rather irregular way of conducting their proceedings—[Mr. FLAVIN: The Leader of the House as an auctioneer]—but there did not appear to be many dissentients. He would therefore accept 2.15.
MR. BRYCEassured the right hon. Gentleman that very little would be lost by the alteration, as the work of the Grand Committees was practically paralysed during the luncheon interval at present, and Members would now defer their lunch until after 2.15.
Question put, and negatived.
Amendment made to the Standing Order, by inserting—
"In line 9, after the word 'sit,' the words 'after a quarter-past Two of the clock.' "—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
The Standing Order, "Standing Committees," as finally adopted, is as follows :—
That two Standing Committees be appointed for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Precedure, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, which may, by Order of the House in each case, be committed to them, and the procedure in such Committees shall be the same as in a Select Committee, unless the House shall otherwise order: Provided that strangers shall be admitted, except when the Committee shall order them to withdraw; and the said Committees shall not sit after a quarter past Two of the clock whilst the House is silting without the Order of the House. Provided also that any Notice of Amendment to any Clause in a Bill which may be committed to a Standing Committee, given by any hon. Member in the House, shall stand referred to such Committee. Provided
540
also that Twenty be the quorum of such Standing Committees.

STEAMSHIP SUBSIDIES.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th March], "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subsidies to steamship companies and sailing vessels under Foreign governments, and the effect thereby produced on British trade: "—(Sir William Walrond.)—
Question again proposed :—
MR. CALDWELLcontended that the House was not in a position to reappoint this Committee as it dealt only with the subsidies given in foreign vessels. A Committee had already sat, the reference to which was much wider than that now proposed, and it seemed strange that a Committee should be moved with a much narrower reference. As to the question of subsidies, they were now in a transition state. They were much more interested in the question of subsidies to British vessels, and this Committee had been taking evidence on that point, although it was outside their reference. By what right had they gone into that question I He objected altogether to a Committee going outside the power remitted to them, and in order that the Committee might be able to go effectively into that part of the subject he had proposed introducing words into the reference giving them the necessary power. The matter had been complicated by the appointment of an Admiralty Committee to deal with this particular question as regarded cruisers for the Navy.
It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL [H.L.]
  Presented (pursuant to leave given on Tuesday last): read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with :—
  London School Board (Superannuation).
  And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with :—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2).
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3).
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  RENFREW HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  READING GAS BILL,
    GRAND JUNCTION WATER BILL,

      BROMLEY GAS BILL,
      HIGHAM FERRERS AND RUSHDEN WATER BOARD BILL.
      Reported, without Amendment.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAM WAYS BILL.
    NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments.
  BRIGHTON AND ROTTINGDEAN SEASHORE ELECTRIC TRAMROAD BILL.
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, without Amendment.
  KENT WATER BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to he proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  TIVERTON MARKET BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMP-STEAD RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
    CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMP-STEAD RAILWAY (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]

      CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMP-STEAD RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
      ISLINGTON AND EUSTON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      CITY AND CRYSTAL PALACE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      EDGWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Kinnaird be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Castletown.

  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCILITRAM-WAYS BILL,
    ROSSENDALE VALLEYS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],

      SOUTH SHIELDS, SUNDERLAND, AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
      MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.],
      MENAI BRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.],
      BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.],
      SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.—D. Northumberland (Chairman), E. Manvers, V. Powerscourt, L. Sinclair, L. Iveagh. Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Monday next, at Twelve o'clock, and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

      RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
      LIVERPOOL GRAIN STORAGE AND TRANSIT COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
      Returned from the Commons agreed to.
      LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment.
      WREXHAM WATER BILL [H.L.]
      Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMP-STEAD RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [H.L.],
    ISLINGTON AND EUSTON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],

      CITY AND CRYSTAL PALACE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
      EDGEWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY RBIL [H.L.],
      GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
      NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
      GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
      BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Marquess of Zetland be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Kinnaird; read, and agreed to.

      REPAYMENT OF LOANS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
      Message from the Commons for leave for the Lord Welby to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

    TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
    No. 2778. Sweden (Stockholm, etc.).
    No. 2779. China (Samshui).
    No. 2780. Spain (Cadiz).
    No. 2781. United States (New York).
    No. 2782. Russia (Batoum).

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION.
  Report on Manuscripts in the Welsh Language, Volume II., Part I., Jesus College, Oxford; Free Library, Cardiff; Havod, Wrexham; Llanwrin; Merthyr; Aberdâr.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the year ended 31st December, 1901, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871); together with Reports of the inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the railway department to the Board of Trade, upon certain accidents which were inquired into.

  WELLINGTON COLLEGE.
  Report of the Governors, for the year ended the 31st December, 1901; with accounts.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION (WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1889).
  Report of the Board of Education on the administration of schools, under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889.
  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Accounts showing the receipts and expenditure on account of bankruptcy proceedings during the year ended 31st March, 1902.
  COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) ACT, 1890.
  Account showing receipts and expenditure on accounts of proceedings under the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, during the year ended 31st March, 1902.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Order, dated the 23rd day of April, 1902, defining a part of the Port of Harwich as a foreign animals quarantine station.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by His Majesty to Frank Stephens, a convict under detention in Parkhurst Prison, permitting the said Frank Stevens to leave the prison on condition of his proceeding to King's College Hospital, there to remain for such time as is necessary to undergo treatment, and afterwards return in custody to Parkhurst Prison.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (ACCOUNTS).
  Accounts showing the sums received and expended for the purposes of the Metropolitan Police, and the Police Pension Funds, between the 1st April, 1 901, and the 31st March, 1902.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Wild Birds Protection Acts was presented by the Earl of Jersey; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 58.)

  DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Secoud Reading read.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' indulgence while I explain the provisions of this Bill and state the reasons which to my mind justify them. I can assure your Lordships that on my part this measure has not been hastily prepared. I have had occasion to consider the question of the divorce laws of this country for the past eight years at least, and I have felt that some Amendment is required. The Bill now before your Lordships has actually been drafted for three years. Your Lordships no doubt recollect among the fables of your youth the fable of a fox without a tail, and I have felt until the present moment that if I were to introduce any Bill dealing with the subject of divorce I should be exposed to misconstruction, and my attempt to alter the law would be regarded as not entirely disinterested. That objection no longer applies, and I am therefore emboldened to present this Bill for your Lordships' consideration. Clause 1 states the
  390
  reasons for which a marriage can be dissolved a vinculo. The only existing ground for dissolving a marriage is set out in Sub-section (a) of Clause 1. The clause also sets out five other grounds on which either party to a marriage—the woman being placed in exactly the same position as the man—may petition for a divorce—namely, cruelty, penal servitude for a term of not less than three years, lunacy, living apart for three years, and living apart for one year provided the other party concurs in the petition. Clause 2 provides that when the wife presents the petition she shall have precisely the same remedies against the co-respondent with respect to damages as the husband in cases where the petition is presented by him. Clauses 3 and 4 are consequential clauses dealing merely with the settlement of property. Clause 5 provides for suits for nullity of marriage; and Clause 7 abolishes petitions for judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, or in respect of jactitation of marriage. A remedy to obtain the same object as a suit for jactitation is provided in Clause 6, which enacts that a person may present a petition to the Court for a decree declaring that a marriage has or has not been in fact solemnised between him and any other person, and the Court may pronounce a decree accordingly.
  As to procedure, Clauses 8, 9, 10, and 11 make considerable alterations. They abolish the present ecclesiastical common law and the ecclesiastical procedure of the Divorce Court, and provide for the framing of rules in accordance, as far as possible, with the rules in force in the King's Bench Division; power to tax costs and have them paid into Court before the hearing is abolished; but provision is made for security for costs. Clause 12 provides that a suit for the dissolution of marriage may be brought in the County Court, where the total joint annual income of a husband and wife does not exceed £500; but no claim for damages against a co-respondent shall be made in a County Court. Clause 16 alters the law as to the time when a decree of dissolution of marriage shall take effect. Instead of the present system of a decree nisi running for six months and then being made absolute, the clause provides that

  391
  a decree of dissolution shall take effect, if there is no appeal, on the expiration of one month from the date of the decree; and if there is an appeal, at the conclusion of the hearing of such appeal or at the expiration of time for further appealing.
  Clause 17 provides for legitimation by subsequent marriage, and is not connected with the divorce provisions of the Bill; and Clause 18 legalises marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister, and between a woman and her deceased husband's brother. I desire to say at once that I introduced the latter clause into the Bill intending thereby to lay before your Lordships what appeared to my mind to be desirable provisions to enact in regard to the law of marriage; but I do not propose to offer any observations upon it or to press it in any way, desiring to confine discussion to the provisions for divorce. No doubt these provisions will be considered by many of your Lordships as entirely novel, and perhaps unheard of; but they will not appear so novel to any one who has read the debates in both Houses of Parliament in 1856 and 1857 on the Matrimonial Causes Act, for nearly all the suggestions I now make were made when the Act of 1857 was passed. The history of that Bill is in itself interesting, and to some extent explains why it left some questions not fully dealt with. A Commission reported in 1850 or thereabouts, and a Bill was introduced into this House in 1856, but did not proceed farther. A second Bill was introduced at the beginning of 1857, and, having passed through your Lordships' House, was sent down to the House of Commons in March of that year, but its progress was interrupted by a dissolution of Parliament. In the same year a third Bill was introduced and passed, and sent down to the other House in the month of July. That Bill—it was a Government measure—appears to have been forced through the House of Commons in the face of considerable opposition. The discussions on the Bill continued until well past the middle of August—an unusual time for Parliament to be sitting—and therefore the consideration given to it was
  392
  not what it might have been if the Bill had been before the House at an earlier period of the session.
  The mind of everyone who considers the question of divorce turns naturally to the religious view upon the subject—to the Scriptural warrant for divorce or the Scriptural prohibition of divorce, as the case may be. That occupied a very large portion of the discussions in your Lordships' House in 1856 and 1857, and I find that very divergent views were taken on that subject. In July, 1856, the Bishop of Salisbury said—
  "He thought that no teaching could be more plain than this, and he could come to only one conclusion, viz., that our Lord had annulled the provisions of the libellum repudii and that divorce and remarriage were, according to the law of Christ, impossible. He, however, admitted that there was one exception allowed for divorce—not for divorce and remarriage, but for separation without the power of remarrying—and that was the case of adultery."
  The Bishop of Oxford, whose view appeared to vary somewhat from time to time, said on July 3rd, 1856—
  "He thought that it would be in the recollection of the House that he had never alleged that any canon of the Church laid down the law upon the matter, nor had he denied that marriage in its essence was other than a civil contract."
  On June 25th, 1857, the Bishop of Oxford said—
  "There were many of their Lordships who believed that whatever doubts there might be as to the general power of remarriage after divorce, there was me doubt that the words of our Lord forbade the adulterous woman remarrying in the lifetime of her husband."
  Finally, in uttering a last protest against the passing of the measure, the Bishop said—
  "He believed it was contrary to the law of God, contrary to the law of the Church of England, and, as he believed, fruitful in future crime and misery to the people of England. He believed that in passing it they were dealing a more fatal blow to family purity than they could by any other Act."
  Whereas the Bishop of Oxford held that divorce and remarriage were impossible, other Members of the Episcopal Bench seemed to think that divorce was permitted in the case of adultery, and that remarriage—in the case, at any rate, of the innocent party—could take place. I have done what I could to arrive at a conclusion on the subject, and

  393
  my own mind is that Christ, in answering the questions that were put to Him, did not contemplate what we understand by a divorce a vinculo. That being so, I do not think it is necessary for your Lordships at this date further to deal with the question whether or not there is a Scriptural permission for divorce a vinculo, because that has been settled by the passing of the Act of 1857. I need not, therefore, trouble your Lordships further with regard to the Scriptural argument, which seems to me not to be conclusive one way or the other; and I do not know that your Lordships would feel bound, in legislating at the present day, by some dictum laid down in the New Testament, and variously interpreted. The question was felt to be so difficult in 1857 that the appointment of a Select Committee was moved to consider it, but the proposal was rejected, it being felt that the decision of a Select Committee could have no authority which would be binding on a theological question of this character.
  What is our present practice with regard to divorce? A divorce a vinculo is granted to a husband for adultery on the part of his wife, and to a wife for adultery on the part of her husband when coupled with cruelty or other aggravating circumstances. It was felt at the time when the Act was passed that that difference between the sexes was an unfair difference, and one which could not be maintained; and, owing to the growth of that feeling, the practice in the Divorce Court has been to find the husband guilty of cruelty, when adultery has been proved, on evidence which is continually decreasing in strength. The other remedy that the present law provides is that of judicial separation, which is a divorce for all practical purposes, but does not dissolve the legal bond of marriage or enable either of the parties to marry again. Such a separation as that is granted for cruelty and desertion. It is a sort of via media that has been discovered in this country, and is, I believe, peculiar to this country, between absolute divorce and refusal of divorce; and it is supposed to afford sufficient relief to those who suffer through unhappy marriages. Desertion, according to the ruling of the Courts, cannot commence if the parties have once separated by mutual consent. I speak
  394
  subject to correction, but I have been advised that where a desertion takes place in the first instance by consent, even for a time limited, that cannot be converted into a wilful desertion by the refusal of one party to return to cohabitation. Your Lordships are, of course, aware of the provisions against collusion and connivance, and for damages against the adulterer. In addition, there is the special provision that a decree when made shall not become absolute for six months, and there is an official known as the King's Proctor whose duty it is to spend the interval in ascertaining whether anything material has been kept from the Court, and whether the petitioner came to the Court, as the expression is, "with clean hands." The law as it exists at present in this country is that where one party to the marriage has committed adultery a divorce can be granted, but where both parties have committed adultery a divorce is refused. In accordance with the present practice of the Court, if both parties desire a divorce they are almost certain to be found guilty of collusion. The provision with regard to collusion was originally intended, I presume, to prevent one party committing adultery by agreement with the other; but it has come to mean in practice that one of the parties must be supposed not to desire the divorce which the other party is seeking. An action for divorce has only to be undefended for collusion to be at once suspected.
  Then, my Lords, there is a curious claim as to territorial jurisdiction made by the Divorce Court, which makes the law bear harder on many people than might otherwise be the case; for if persons were able to obtain divorces in other places the severity of the divorce law in this country would not affect them so seriously. But, as the law stands, a divorce obtained in another country is not recognised unless the person who obtains it is domiciled there, and the admission of such foreign domicile is practically never made by the Court. The Court, however, claims to exercise jurisdiction over persons even of alien nationality who are not domiciled in this country. There is the case, familiar to the legal Members of your Lordship's House, of a gentleman, a native of France,

  395
  who was acting as consul in this country for the French Government. He was a foreigner, and had acquired no domicile in this country, but he was divorced by his wife, the Divorce Court claiming to have inherited the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of a bishop to discipline Christians having their marital home in his diocese. So your Lordships will see that the Court claims jurisdiction over a foreigner who is not domiciled in this country, while it refuses to recognise that power on the part of the Divorce Courts of other countries. We have very close at hand a divorce law which differs materially from ours, and which agrees to a large extent with the proposals I am laying before your Lordships. We have to go no further than Scotland to find a country where divorce a vinculo is permitted for desertion for three years and upwards, and that law has not, so far as I am aware, led to scandal or abuse. In America, divorce is allowed for a great many reasons, some of which might appear almost frivolous. The practice is so varied in the different independent sovereign States of the Union, that it is difficult to lay down any general law; but your Lordships are, no doubt, aware of what are the general grounds on which a divorce is granted in America, and that desertion and cruelty provide grounds for divorce in a large majority of the States. The question arises, is there any need for an Amendment of the divorce law? Although not one of your Lordships may be prepared to support this Bill, I still think there is not one noble Lord who can say that the divorce law is in a satisfactory or logical position, or who will not admit that some Amendment is urgently called for. Cases of hardship arise perpetually. There are cases in which persons have been, to all intents and purposes, divorced for years and years, but, notwithstanding, severance of the legal bond is refused to them, and they are condemned to live a mutilated life, without a home, a spouse, or a family, or the chance of obtaining any.
  The illusory remedy of judicial separation stands, I think, as the worst ever presented as a settlement of matrimonial differences. That I am not alone in that opinion your Lordships will find from the debates that took place in 1857. I am glad to find that even a Bishop—the
  396
  Bishop of Exeter—took the view that the remedy was not a suitable one. He said—
  "With regard to the doctrine of divorce a mensa et thoro, he thought that it was wholly inapplicable to the nature of the offence, and to the circumstances of the law. It was unknown by the Church of Christ at any period, except under the dominion of Rome; but they were now asked permanently to inflict the corrupt system of that Church upon the Church and the nation of England."
  On July 3rd, 1856, the Earl of Donoughmore said—
  "What was the law of the Church? It was a remnant of old Catholic times—a remnant of those laws which were made by the priesthood for the purpose of obtaining complete control over the people, and an invention to raise quibbles with the object of levying taxes for dispensations on the marriages of the whole population of Europe. It was confessedly by mere accident that this part of the ecclesiastical law was retained in our jurisprudence. … He hoped the day was not far distant when Parliament would adopt a general law dealing with this subject in the plain common-sense view which had prevailed in Scotland for years without having inflicted any injury to the morals of the people—that we should recognise the fact that a wife had the same right of divorce as the husband. Great stress had been laid by the noble Baron and by both right rev prelates upon the danger likely to ensue from the liberty of divorce which the Bill would give; but, in reply to that apprehension, he would refer to the case of Scotland, where that liberty had existed for years, and without producing any deteriorating effect upon the morals of its people."
  I have another opinion, which I regard as a very valuable one, to quote. On August 6th, 1857, during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons, Viscount Palmerston said—
  "The position in which man and wife were placed by these judicial separations was a most objectionable one, and if marriage were dissolved at all, he thought that it should be dissolved altogether, that the parties should be entirely set free, and that they should be able to contract other engagements. He thought that parting man and wife by these judicial separations placed both of them in situations of great temptation, where they were liable to form connections which it was not desirable to encourage."
  I must apologise for reading so many quotations to the House, but I feel that the words of other speakers in support of my argument must carry far more weight than any words of mine can. There can, I think, be no question that the religious view taken of marriage is a survival of that taken by the Roman Catholic Church. In the days when the Church was first allied with the

  397
  Roman Empire divorce went on very much in accordance with the principles of Roman law, and with a freedom which nobody wishes to re-establish; but the Church gradually came to obtain control over human relations, and the Council of Trent, I believe, finally settled that marriage could not be dissolved for any reason at all. That survival came near being abolished in this country as long ago as the sixteenth century. Archbishop Cranmer, with the assistance of numerous other eminent divines and jurists, drew up a code of Protestant reforms considered desirable, dealing among other things with the law of marriage and known as the Reformatio legum. It may be a surprise to those who have not studied this subject to know that this code provided for divorce a vinculo not only on the ground of adultery, but on the ground of cruelty and desertion. At that time, therefore, the country came near obtaining that for which I fear I shall ask your Lordships in vain to-day. What is it that happens when a marriage is disolved by a sentence of separation a mensa et thoro? Both parties are deprived of the opportunity of making fresh ties; both are left neither husband nor wife, nor is either capable of marrying again. They have no home and no power of re-establishing one, they are deprived of mutual help and comfort, of family life and of home. I submit that increased facilities for divorce do not, as is too generally assumed, tend to immorality, but where divorce is justified, tend rather to morality, happiness, and family life.
  There has been a change also in the facts of married life in the present day. Your Lordships are all acquainted with the play "The Taming of the Shrew," in which a somewhat violent man marries a rather violent and rebellious wife. The methods which the husband adopts to reduce his wife to order would in the present day expose him to a successful petition for cruelty and the wife would get a judicial separation. An argument often used against divorce is that where there is an opportunity of separating, the bond of marriage will be less kept to than when it is known that the bond is indissoluble. But no husband is bound at the present day to
  398
  live with his wife and no wife is bound to live with her husband. The Eccles-siastical Courts took at any rate a logical view of the matter, and recognised that you must either have a real marriage by which the party who refused to live with the other party should be compelled to do so or to go to prison (and for that purpose gave the action for restitution of conjugal rights), or give up the argument of indissolubility. But what is now the effect of that action? The effect of a successful action for restitution of conjugal rights is not to restore the parties to the married state. The order used to be enforced by the painful process in the last degree of imprisonment for contempt, but since the Welldon Act that is no longer the case, and a refusal to obey the order for restitution is now taken as an equivalent for wilful desertion for two years and upwards, and gives the right to a judicial separation. In this way the action effects the exact contrary of its nominal object.
  Since the Jackson case was decided it is no longer the law that a husband may put duress on his wife to remain in his house longer than she wishes. If she chooses she may leave him at the church door, and the marriage which has been effected in the church may be broken at that moment by the wife walking away, and there is no power which can bring them back to a state of marriage. I say that if the state of marriage has in fact been abolished it is no longer an advantage to say that the marriage bond shall be indissoluble. Under these circumstances we are not justified now in saying—though I admit that this was an argument which had force in its day—that persons are bound to live together and will somehow endeavour to make the best of it.
  I now turn to the provisions of this Bill. Adultery is already admitted by the law to be a sufficient ground for divorce, and I submit that cruelty should also be a reason for obtaining a divorce. At present it is the means of obtaining a divorce a mensa et thoro—a partial divorce—but it would be better for the morality and the happiness of the parties were it recognised that cruelty is inconsistent with the marriage vows that bind husband and wife together. Desertion is also entirely inconsistent with the vows they have taken to comfort and assist each

  399
  other. I have the support in this view of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone was a strenuous opponent of the Bill of 1857, and he made many observations against it, among them the following—
  "We have many causes far more fatal to the great obligations of marriage, as disease, idiocy, crime involving imprisonment for life, and which is, if the bond is dissoluble, might be urged as a reason for divorce; but that is not what I wish to dwell upon at present. My hon. and learned friend said by the fact of the adultery the marriage bond is destroyed, and then he asked the House to pass a Bill under which nineteen out of every twenty adulterers in the land would be covered with perfect immunity."
  Mr. Gladstone was, of course, referring to the provision that a husband could not be divorced for adultery only. He proceeded—
  "I repeat, the enormous majority of adulteries are adulteries of men; and having shown that adultery destroyed the marriage bond, my hon. and learned friend immediately demanded a licence to destroy nineteen-twentieths of the propositions he laid down."
  On the same point Lord Lyndhurst said in March, 1857—
  "I find that in Scotland adultery on the part of the husband gives the wife a right to a divorce, just as the adultery of the woman gives the man a similar right. The remedy extends alike to the lower as to the higher classes; and yet I believe that the state of the law has had no demoralising effect in that country. Why, then, should we assume that a similar provision would be prejudicial to morality in this portion of the United Kingdom? In my opinion there is no reason why the law of Scotland upon this subject should not be extended to England; and I do not think that one arrangement ought to prevail upon such a point in the north and a different one in the south of the island. When the former Bill was before a Committee I took occasion to say that, as in Scotland the law was equally applicable to the husband and wife, I thought there was no reason why a similar rule should not be adopted in this country."
  On the question of desertion, Lord Lyndhurst said :—
  "There is another alteration which I am most anxious to see introduced into this Bill. I think that when a husband breaks his marriage vow, and, after abandoning his wife for a certain number of years, goes to a distant country with the view of deserting her, divorce a vinculo ought to be granted to a wife so deserted. In pressing that point on your Lordships' notice, I would ask you to reflect for a moment on the objects of marriage. Look at the marriage ceremony of our Church. Three objects are there stated—first, the procreation of children, and their nurture in the fear of God; secondly, the prevention of sin; and thirdly, the love, comfort, and protection, in
  400
  sickness and in health, between the husband and the wife. What is the vow taken by the husband in the ceremony of marriage? Nothing can be more stringent. He vows he will love, comfort, keep, and protect his wife, in sickness and in health, and, forsaking all other women, keep only to her until death do them part. That was the obligation which he voluntarily contracted. It was as strong an obligation as any into which it would be possible for him to enter, and it was one which must exercise the most powerful influence over any man possessing the least degree of feeling. When he disregards that obligation, when he defeats all the objects for which marriage had been instituted—when he passes into a distant country with a view to cut off' all communication between him and his wife, is it right or just that she should still be bound to him by our marriage law? Can we say, under such circumstances, that the wife should be tied to a man who has so cruelly deserted her and her children? Is there any justice in such a system? Since this matter was last brought under the consideration of your Lordships' House, I have received several communications from women placed in this unfortunate situation, and I cannot describe to your Lordships how strongly their recitals of the wretchedness of their condition were calculated to wring the heart. The first thing to which a woman looks in early life is a matrimonial union, on which she may build all her prospects of future happiness. She afterwards selects an object for her affection. With that confidence and fidelity which women only can entertain, she gives up to him her property, her person, and all her expectations of welfare in this life. Before long, however, she wakes from this dream, and finds herself abandoned and deserted by the object of her love. She sees nothing before her but a dreary existence, without anything on which she can repose her affections; her life is a life 'Where no hope comes that comes to all.' Possessed, on the other hand, of a warm heart, a generous spirit, and a confiding temper, she meets with some cowardly seducer, sinks into sin, and ends her life in misery and wretchedness. I most earnestly implore your Lordships to consider this state of the law. We are here not to protect our own sex alone, but we are still more called on to protect those who have no means of protecting themselves. Why, I repeat, should the law in this respect be so different between the two parts of the United Kingdom? Why should Scotland be just and generous to women in this respect, and England be cold, unfeeling, barbarous? Let me remind you that the great mass of the enlightened divines of the Church of England, and many laymen of distinguished talent and position, laid down the doctrine, in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., that the rights of divorce should be granted to a wife who had been abandoned by her husband. I make these observations, my Lords, in the present stage of this Bill in order to give your Lordships an opportunity of reflecting on the justice of this claim; and the more you reflect upon it, I am sure you will be the more disposed to grant the necessary relief."
  I do not know that I could possibly express so well, in any words of mine,

  401
  the necessity and the justification which, in my opinion, exist for divorce on the ground of desertion. Those remarks were made forty-five years ago, and since that time there has been no material alteration in the divorce law of this country. At a later date, in June, 1859, a protest was lodged by Lords Lyndhurst and Hutchinson which cited reasons for granting divorce on the ground of desertion. They stated—
  "It is well known that at the Reformation the subject was anxiously and carefully considered by prelates and divines eminent for learning and piety, and that they came to the conclusion that wilful desertion was a scriptural ground for divorce. We find the names of Archbishop Cranmer, of the Bishops of London, Winchester, Ely, Exeter, and others; of Latimer, Parker, etc., of Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, Beza, Luther, Melancthon. Calvin, etc., among those who maintained this opinion, and which was adopted by the whole body of Protestants on the continent of Europe."
  I think it is, therefore, clear that I was justified in stating that proposals contained in this Bill are not so novel as they may at first sight appear.
  I now come to the sub-sections of Clause 1, which provide that either party to a marriage may petition for a dissolution on the ground that the other party is undergoing penal servitude for a term of not less than three years, or has been certified to be of unsound mind under the Lunacy Act; and I submit that lunacy and imprisonment break the marriage tie as much as desertion. Where a wife is devoted to a husband who is sentenced to five years imprisonment, she will wait till he comes out; but there are cases in which that may not be so, and in those cases it does not seem to be unreasonable that the party who is deprived of the society of the other spouse should have an opportunity of dissolving the marriage. The same contention applies with regard to lunacy; and your Lordships will recollect that in the extract which I read from a speech by Mr. Gladstone both lunacy and imprisonment were mentioned as justifying a divorce a vinculo.
  The most novel clause in the Bill is that which provides for divorce after one year's separation where both parties concur in the petition. As I have already explained, the theory of the present law is that one of the parties must desire a
  402
  divorce and the other not. It often happens that both spouses earnestly desire divorce, though neither is willing to enter into collusion or to take the dirty and obnoxious roadprescribed by the present law. At present the only persons who can obtain divorce are those who commit adultery; and, as was predicted by speakers in both Houses of Parliament in 1857, the Act of that year has put a premium on adultery. There are many cases where it is quite impossible for husband and wife ever to live together again, and for those cases this Bill will provide a remedy. The argument frequently used against divorce is that it impairs the sanctity of the home. But in the cases contemplated by the Bill the home has already gone. The effect of these proposals would be to increase, not loose living, but the number of happy homes, and to diminish adultery. There would be fewer scandals and less evidence of a repulsive kind, which neither party would care to produce if a more decent method of breaking the marriage tie were provided. On the subject of the equality of the sexes, I would quote from two or three of the speeches on the Bill of 1857. The Bishop of Oxford said—
  "He could find no shadow of a foundation in the Gospel for the extension of the right of divorce to a wife It was distinctly stated that a husband might put away his wife, but no general principle was asserted in the Gospel which would equally entitle a wife to put away her husband. It seemed to recognise an equality in the sexes; but the truth was, that though the sin might he equal in each, yet the social crime was different in magnitude as committed by the one or the other; and our blessed Master, while allowing a husband to put away his wife for adultery, because all the highest purposes for which marriage was instituted by God would be defeated by the infidelity of the wife, never extended the same right to the other side."
  I am afraid that nowadays that will appear rather a Mosaic view to take of the relations of the sexes. Mr. Drummond, in the House of Commons, said—
  "His object was to have perfect equality between the two sexes. The laws of England were more severe against the woman than were those of any other country in Europe. That House was a body of men legislating for women, and they had by a code of their own invention, and for their own purposes, contrived to establish the general notion that unchastity in a man was a much less evil than unchastity in a woman."
  Mr Gladstone made a long speech, arguing most strenuously in favour of

  403
  equal rights for both sexes, in the course of which he said—
  "I believe that the evil of introducing this principle of inequality between men and women is far greater than the evil which would arise from additional cases of divorce a vinculo ; and I take my stand in the first place on this: that if it be assumed that the indissolubility of marriage has been the result of the operation of the Christian religion on earth, still more emphatically I believe it may be assumed that the principle of the equality of the sexes has been the consequence of that religion."
  A protest on the same subject was lodged by Lords Hutchinson, Harrington, Lyndhurst, Talbot de Malahide, and Belmore, after the passing of the Bill of 1857, in which they stated in emphatic words their reasons for countenancing equality between the sexes. Subsequently a Bill containing similar provisions to those contained in the Act of 1857 was introduced in the Council of the Governor-General of India; and in the course of a speech on this Bill, Sir Henry Maine quoted the opinion of Sir Barnes Peacock—
  "Sir Barnes Peacock" (said Sir Henry Maine) "states his opinion to be that he does not think it either just or politic to allow a dissolution of marriage for adultery of the wife, and not to allow it to the wife for adultery of the husband, however flagrant and however open, and however often repeated, provided it be not incestuous. He points out that this is not only his opinion, but that of many lawyers, jurists, men of the world, and legislators. He remarks on the inconsistency of placing the sexes on equal terms as regards judicial separation, but not as regards divorce. He cites a dictum, that separations without divorces a vinculo either condemn to celibacy or lead to illicit connection. He quotes a contention to that effect in the Marquess of Northampton's case, reported by Bishop Burnet, and a similar argument used in Lord Rous's case. He appeals to an argument of Lord Thurlow in Mrs. Addingtonts case that, under the Mosaic institutions and the Gospel, a woman might be put away for adultery, and might have similar redress against her husband. He next quotes Lord Eldon's statement that a wife had as good a right as a husband to relief in cases of this description; and he argues that, in a religious point of view, both acts of adultery are equally criminal, and both are alike breaches of the marriage vow if looked at merely as a civil contract."
  It often happens that persons make mistakes in their marriages. If we were all omniscient, no doubt we should all contract happy and successful marriages; but as it is, persons sometimes make mistakes, and in such contracts the Legislature ought, as far as possible, to enable the contracting parties to
  404
  place themselves in the position they occupied before they made their mistake. I hold that the object of a well-thought-out system of divorce should be to provide a lawful method by which persons who contract such unfortunate alliances might free themselves. As to damages against a co-respondent, Clause 2 of this Bill leaves the law as it stands; though it is with reluctance that I admit the necessity of doing so. I agree entirely with the observations of Lord St. Leonardds on that subject, when he said :—
  "He trusted that actions to recover damages, to which a party suing for a divorce must now resort, would be abolished, for he perfectly agreed with the right rev. prelate that if there was anything' more disgraceful than another in our legal procedure it was this action for damages. He should like to know what a man was to do with the money so recovered. He could scarcely mix it up with his common funds, or consent to use it for his own benefit in any of the ordinary transactions of life. He would no more touch it than he would touch scorpions."
  There are, I suppose, persons to whom it is a satisfaction and a gratification to recover damages for the loss of their wives, and so I presume some such provision must remain. Clauses 3 (Maintenance and Settlements), 4 (Custody, Maintenance, and Education of Children), and 5 (Nullity of Marriage) leave the law as it at present stands; Clause 8 makes alterations in procedure, and Clause 9 provides that it shall not be necessary for any pleadings to be accompanied by an affidavit. The procedure in the Court at the present time is founded almost entirely on the procedure of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which is quite out of date, and the practice should be made analogous to the Rules in force in the King's Bench Division. I think all who practice in the Divorce Court will admit the advantage of such an assimilation.
  Now, I approach a totally different subject, and that is the proposal to give the jurisdiction of the Divorce Court to-County Courts. I cannot resist first reading to your Lordships some observations of Mr. Justice Maule in passing sentence on a bigamist—
  "Prisoner at the bar, you have been convicted before me of what the law regards as a very grave and serious offence, that of going through the marriage ceremony a second time while your wife was still alive.
  You plead in mitigation of your conduct that she was given to dissipation and drunkenness, that she proved herself a curse to your household while she remained mistress of it, and that she had latterly deserted you; but I am not premitted to recognise any such plea. You had entered into a solemn engagement to take her for better, for worse, and if you got infinitely more of the latter, as you appear to have done, it was your duty patiently to submit. You say you took another person to be your wife because you were left with several young children, who required the care and protection of some one who might act as a substitute for the parent who had deserted them; but the law makes no allowances for bigamists with large families. Had you taken the other female to live with you as your concubine you would never have been interfered with by the law. But your crime consists in having—to use your own language—preferred to make an honest women of her. Another of your irrational excuses is that your wife had committed adultery, and so you thought you were relieved from treating her with any further consideration; but you "were mistaken. The law in its wisdom points out a means by which you might rid yourself from further association with a woman who had dishonoured you; but you did not think proper to adopt it. I will tell you what that process is. You ought first to have brought an action against your wife's seducer if you could discover him; that might have cost you money, and you say you are a poor working man, but that is not the fault of the law. You would then be obliged to prove by evidence your wife's criminalty in a court of justice, and thus obtain a verdict with damages against the defendant, who was not unlikely to turn out to be a pauper. But so jealous is the law (which you ought to be aware is the perfection of reason) of the sanctity of the marriage tie, that in accomplishing all this you would only have fulfilled the lighter portion of your duty. You must then have gone, with your verdict in your hand, and petitioned the House of Lords for a divorce, it would cost you perhaps five or six hundred pounds, and you do not seem to be worth as many pence. But it is the boast of the law that it is impartial, and makes no difference between the rich and the poor. The wealthiest man in the kingdom would have had to pay no less than that sum for the same luxury; so that you would have no reason to complain. You would, of course, have to prove your case over again, and at the end of a year, or possibly two, you might obtain a decree which would enable you legally to do what you have thought proper to do without it. You have thus wilfully rejected the boon the legislature offered you, and it is my duty to pass upon you such sentence as I think your offence deserves, and that sentence is, that you be imprisoned for one day; and inasmuch as the present assizes is three days old, the result is that you will be immediately discharged."
  It is said that those observations of Mr. Justice Maule had some effect in obtaining the passage of the Divorce Bill of 1857. That Bill was held out as intended to provide a cheaper remedy for the poor man; but as regards poor
  406
  persons the Act of 1857 is as much a farce today as the procedure by means of a private Act of Parliament was before that date. The cost of obtaining a divorce, even in an undefended case, varies from £50 to £150, and labourers and other working-men cannot afford to spend £50 for the luxury of a legal divorce. Speaker after speaker in 1857 said these powers should be given to County Courts. The Marquess of Lansdowne said—
  "I believe that the evils arising from the want of the power of divorce are as great among the loner orders of this country as among the higher clashes—nay, I believe them to be greater. It is possible that if the House will go into the inquiry, some means may be found of extending the tribunal having cognisance of these cases to every part of the country."
  The Bishop of Exeter said—
  "The great object of such a measure ought to be to establish the same law for the poor as for the rich. The only way to make justice cheap in this matter, and easily obtainable, was to establish throughout the country district Courts, which would administer justice in each particular locality."
  Lord Wensleydale said—
  "His fear was that if such a jurisdiction as that contemplated in this Bill were created no answer could be given to any future demand for an extension of the power of deciding these questions; and no one could then say why it should not be brought home to the door of every poor man, and why the County Court should not have authority to dissolve the marriage tie."
  The Earl of Malmesbury expressed the opinion that—
  "A single Court in London might no doubt be rendered useful to all classes residing within the Metropolis; but the people in the provinces would not receive, so far as he could understand, any greater benefit from the measure then they possessed under the existing law."
  Lord Lovaine said—
  "Even if this Bill passed divorces would still be restricted to the wealthy. The Government, in fact, proposed to still leave marriage indissoluble to nine-tenths of the people."
  In the House of Commons, Mr. Collins said—
  "The County Courts were the only Courts to which the poor man could apply for relief in the circumstances supposed by the Bill, but if they were to be closed against him the measure was a mere farce."
  Mr. Butt inquired, where was the inconvenience of a County Court determining whether a wife had committed adultery or not, and added—
  "A County Court at this moment tried the very issue to which the Attorney General objected. Any tradesman who supplied necessaries to the deserted wife might sue the husband for the cost. The husband might answer that he had a good cause for deserting her, and then the Judge must decide."
  Another speaker thought they ought to make some attempt not to destroy all the existing local Courts without providing some equivalent. I do not think that any words of mine are needed to commend to your Lordship a provision for extending justice to the poor. Whatever might have been thought of County Courts at that date, when they existed for the recovery of small debts and nothing else, County Court Judges have now to deal with cases involving some of the nicest legal points that can be imagined, such as the Workmen's Compensation Act, and there can be no objection to their trying such a simple issue of fact as whether there had been adultery or not. The Bill does not propose that cases in which damages are claimed shall be tried in County Courts. Petitioners who wish to indulge in the luxury of damages may well be left to another Court. There is one other matter and that is Clause 17, which relates to legitimation by subsequent marriage. The practice in this country in this matter differs from that of all civilised nations. I will read to the House a statement by Mr. Henry Goudy, D. C. L., on this subject in a lecture on the survival of Roman Law. He said—
  "In England a son who is born out of lawful wedlock must remain a bastard all his life. The subsequent marriage of his parents, quite lawful in itself, can have no effect on his status; his younger brothers and sisters, born after the legal marriage, will wholly exclude him from the legal succession to his parents or natural kinsmen. He can neither be heir nor himself have heirs on intestacy, except those of his own body. In Scotland the law on this matter is exactly the reverse. The subsequent marriage of the parents of an illegitimate child makes it legitimate. By a convenient legal fiction the marriage is presumed to have existed at the date of the birth, so as to confer the status of legitimacy as from that date. But I venture to think that in any future codification of the law of the family relations, England must be prepared to follow the lead of Christendom and accept the Scottish law on the subject. It seems just that the parents of an illegitimate
  408
  child should have the opportunity of atonin for their offence by marriage, and saving their offspring from unmerited disgrace."
  I think the proposal in the Bill will appeal to everyone as a matter of common sense. In conclusion I have to thank your Lordships for the patient hearing you have given me, and to assure you that I should not have brought this Bill forward had I not been convinced of the urgent need for an Amendment of the divorce law of this country.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Russell.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I very much regret that such a Bill as this has been introduced into your Lordships' House. I cannot help thinking that if the custom which obtains in the House of Commons, requiring leave to be given to introduce a Bill, prevailed in this House, no leave ever would have been given for the introduction of this Bill. In the noble Lord's voluminous observations we have heard a great many things which might be the subject of debate; but the main provision of the Bill, the first clause, shows that practically this Bill is one for the abolition of the institution of marriage. That in itself is enough—at least, I hope it is enough—to prevent the discussion of the Bill. I should be very sorry to think that in this House the question whether marriage should continue to exist in this country should be considered a subject for debate. To prove that this is the principle involved, it is only necessary to read to your Lordships the following Section of Clause 1—
  "That, during the year preceding the presentation of the petition, the parties to the marriage have lived apart, and that the other party concurs in the petition."
  That is to say, that if two people have married and have entered into the most solemn obligation that can possibly exist among mankind, it is enough for them to live apart for one year and both consent to the dissolution of the marriage, and upon that the Court shall pronounce a decree dissolving the marriage. I take that alone—I decline to discuss a great many of the other topics which might fairly be the subject of discussion—I take that alone, and I say that the

  409
  introduction of such a provision as that is an outrage upon your Lordships' House, something in the nature of an insult to your Lordships, and it is a thing which I, for one, deprecate most strongly. I, therefore, propose to take this personally. Of later years it has been the custom that what is, in effect, a postponement of a Bill should be moved, and not its rejection. In an earlier period of your Lordships' history it was very common to move the rejection of a Bill, and I propose to move the rejection of this Bill. I should have thought it would have been more in accordance with the ordinary practice of your Lordships' House that I should move an Amendment to the Second Reading in order to introduce the word "rejection," but, on looking up the precedents, I find it is more usual, first of all, to negative the Motion for the Second Reading, and then subsequently to move the rejection of the Bill. I propose to take that course.
  On Question, resolved in the negative.
  Then it was moved that the Bill be rejected.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, agreed to; and ordered accordingly.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.