Sitting of 2 May 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
  BRYNMAWR AND WESTERN VALLEYS RAILWAY (VESTING) BILL.

    CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
    CAVEHILL AND WHITEWELL TRAM-WAYS BILL
    DARTFORD IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

    NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
    Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
    NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.
    SALFORD CORPORATION BILL (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
    Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (ELECTRIC SUPPLY) BILL.
  Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  YORK CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to he upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision as to the application of the moneys arising from the markets held within the borough of Tiverton, in the county of Devon, and as to the payment of the sums secured by mortgage on such markets; and for other purposes." Tiverton Market Bill [Lords].
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the Rickmansworth Gas Company." Rickmansworth Gas Bill [Lords].

  TIVERTON MARKET BILL [LORDS], RICKMANSWORTH GAS BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  EAST INDIA (FAMINE AREAS).
  Petition from London, for the adoption of the recommendations of the Famine Commission of 1900; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Margate, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Moss Side, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Patricroft, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Ulceby, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition from Eccles, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Longside, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petitions against: From Widnes and Stockton; to lie upon the Table
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Selkirk, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Dronfield; York and Scarborough; Cinderford; Plymouth; Largs; Longsight; Sheffield (four); Stoke; Chingford; Lingdale; Cleveland; Lee and Lewisham; North Kelsey; Trowbridge; Thornaby; Richmond (Surrey); Dacre; Heckmondwike; South Norwood; Backworth and Seghill; Whitchurch; Southampton; Bristol; Eston; Inverness; Brotton; Spotlands; and Colinton; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 28th April, 1902, declaring that
  554
  William T. Archer, Royal Laboratory. War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS (POPULATION OVER 10,000) AND OTHER URBAN DISTRICTS (POPULATION OVER 20,000), ENGLAND AND WALES, EXCLUDING LONDON.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st May; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 171.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for Secondary Day Schools (from 1st August, 1902, to 31st July, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ULTIMUS HÆRES (SCOTLAND) (ACCOUNT AND LIST OF ESTATES).
  Return ordered, "of Abstract Account of the Receipts and Payments of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Scotland, in the year ending the 31st day. of December, 1901 in the administration of Estates and Treasure Trove on behalf of the Crown."
  "And of Alphabetical List of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, in the same year."—(Mr. A listen Chamberlain.)

(3.35.) QUESTIONS.

  Transvaal Colony—Government Banking Account.
  MR. BOLTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the banking account of the Government of the Transvaal Colony is, to the exclusion of British banks, to be entrusted to the National Bank of the South African Republic, an institution founded with foreign capital; and whether, when the banking account for the Orange River Colony is settled, the claims of a British institution, which has been long established there, will receive due consideration.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The communications with Lord Milner on the subject of the position to be held by these two banks are not yet complete.

  Johannesburg Mines—Refugees' Committee Protest.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in October, 1900, he received a communication from the Refugees' Committee in Cape Town protesting against their detention in that city, and stating that there was dissatisfaction at the enforced postponement of their return to Johannesburg; whether he is aware that in many instances the places in the mines of the 120,000 British miners driven out of Johannesburg by the war from their work and homes have been filled by Kaffirs; can he state approximately how many of these 120,000 British refugees have been permitted by Lord Milner to return to Johannesburg; and what instructions, if any, has he given to Lord Milner to oppose schemes for the substitution of blacks in the places occupied by whites before the war, in the Transvaal mines.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I received the communication referred to in the Question. Since then, about one-third of the refugees have returned to Johannesburg, and large numbers are going back every month. I have no information to show that in many instances Kaffirs have taken the work previously done by white men, and I see no reason for any special instructions to Lord Milner on the subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will you inform me, Mr. Speaker, if a paragraph was deleted from this Question upon your authority?
  MR. SPEAKER: The matter has not been brought under my notice before this.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then, Sir, with your permission, I will raise it as a question of order later on.

  Remounts—Captain Cane Hunt.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that purchases of remounts have been made from a Captain Cane Hunt, a Cheltenham horse dealer, and that most of these horses were purchased by Captain Hunt at the Cheltenham and other repositories at prices varying from fifteen to thirty-one guineas, the average price being twenty-three guineas; and if he will state the number of horses purchased from this dealer, and the average price paid for the same.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): No remounts have been purchased from the person mentioned.

  Remounts-Captain Wynne Griffith's Purchases.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that shortly after the commencement of the war Captain Wynne Griffith was asked by the War Office to purchase remounts for its account in the Midlands at the Leicester, Crewe, and York repositories, and that he thus obtained the horses at cost price, whether he can explain why this practice of purchasing horses at the hammer was discontinued; and whether he is aware that agents of the German Government both before and during the war have regularly attended these sales, making purchases for the German Army; and whether in future he will follow the same practice as adopted by the German Government.
  LORD STANLEY: This officer purchased horses, as stated, at Leicester, Crewe and York, but they proved unsatisfactory and such purchasing was discontinued at the two former places. I have no information as to the latter part of the Question.

  Colonel G. Davies-Cooke, 2nd V.B., Royal Welsh Fusiliers.
  MR. BKYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Bryan George Davies-Cooke, honorary

  557
  Colonel of the 2nd V.B. Royal Welsh Fusiliers and A.D.O. to His Majesty the King, was, on 1st October, 1901, adjudicated bankrupt, and that on his application for discharge at Chester, on 17th April, 1902, his discharge was suspended for four years. Whether he is aware that in 1878 this gentleman paid to his creditors 7s. 10d. in the £, and that in 1889 another scheme for his creditors' benefit resulted in most of them receiving nothing; whether this gentleman has, in accordance with regulations, notified to his Commanding Officer the fact that he was unable to meet his engagements; whether the matter has been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for War by the Commander in Chief; and if so, what has been his decision; and, if the bankrupt has not complied with the regulations, whether he will be permitted to hold His Majesty's Commission and continue to act as A.D.C. to His Majesty the King; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter
  MR. KENYON: May I ask whether this officer is not one of the oldest and most zealous of Volunteer officers, and is it any part of the duty of the War Office to hit a man when he is down?
  LORD STANLEY: The matter is being dealt with, but the whole facts are not yet before us.

  Militia—Separation allowances.
  MR. MAJENDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, will a militiaman called up for training this year (1902) receive separation allowance, the same as a regular soldier ordered away for duty, and therefore separated from his wife and family, or the same as a member of the various permanent staffs of the different militia battalions who will shortly assemble for annual training at Salisbury Plain.
  LORD STANLEY: The militiamen will not be granted separation allowance.

  Tientsin operations, 1900—Clasps.
  THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing
  558
  that the takingof the Taku Forts, for which a clasp has been granted, formed part of the operations for the relief of Peking, he can consent to reconsider his decision and to recommend the issue of a clasp inscribed "Tientsin." in recognition of the separate actions which included the taking of the Peiyang Arsenal on 27th June, 1900, and the assault and capture of the native city on 13th and 14th July, 1900.
  THE SECRKTARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I fear it will not be possible to reconsider the decision which has been already arrived at and acted upon. As I informed the hon. Member, it is not proposed to grant a special clasp inscribed Tientsin. The clasp for the Taku Forts was given because the action was one in which ships took part.

  H.M.S. "Leander."
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, seeing that H.M.S. "Leander" is to receive new boilers, he will state what type of boiler is being adopted, who were the manufacturers, what type of boiler is on her at present, and in what year were they fitted on board.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The old boilers of the '"Leander" are to be replaced by single-ended cylindrical boilers. The boilers now being inserted are made by Messrs. J. Brown & Co. of Clydebank. The boilers which are being removed are also cylindrical single-ended boilers. They were fitted on board in 1883.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why water tube boilers were not fitted in this ship, seeing that they are so much approved of?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Because the ship was built for cylindrical boilers, and no special purpose would be served by the installation of water-tube boilers in her case.

  H.M.S. "Diadem."
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty

  559
  whether H.M.S. "Diadem" is going I under her own steam to the Fairfield Works, Glasgow, to be repaired, or whether she is to be towed round; and whether the whole of the work to be done to the machinery and boilers is tendered for; if so, what is the amount of the tender, and what time is specified by the Admiralty for her completion.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: The "Diadem" will be towed to Glasgow. The whole of the repairs will be done under a schedule of prices. The date for completion is not yet fixed, but arrangements are being made for the performance of the work as rapidly as possible.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: Is this vessel in such a condition that she has to be towed round and cannot steam?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The vessel is to be towed round as her boiler casings have been partially removed.

  Indian Government Bank Notes.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state why bank notes issued by the Government of India are not cashed at their face value at the Government currency offices throughout India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Currency notes are by law payable only at the office from which they are issued, or at the Presidency town of the Presidency within which that office of issue is situated. This restriction is maintained because, if the currency notes of all circles could be cashed at any one of the currency offices throughout India, it would entail the locking up of much larger balances than at present.

  British Representatives in Japan.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will explain how the sum of £1,000, which appears in the Diplomatic and Consular Estimates as rent allowances in Japan, is made up.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): This sum is taken to provide lodging allowances at those stations where there is no Government residence.

  Church Discipline—St. Anne's Church, Buxton.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Bishop of Southwell has given his sanction to the vicar of Buxton to practice reservation and the ceremonial use of incense in St. Anne's Church, Buxton, and that this sanction was given without the knowledge or wish of any member of the congregation or of the churchwardens, and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have no knowledge of the facts of the case referred to, nor have I any jurisdiction in the matter.
  MR. MARKHAM: To what Minister must I address the Question?
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not know that any Department has to do with this matter.

  Children's Out-of-School Labour.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now say if there is any prospect of the early introduction of the Bill to restrict the out-of-school labour of school children, as suggested by the recent Report of the Employment of Children Committee.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think it may be advisable to introduce the Bill, and I therefore propose to do so, although,: having regard to the Government programme of business, I am afraid it will: not be possible to hold out any hope of being able to proceed with it this session.

  Drowning Fatality at Putney Charge against the Police.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether

  561
  his attention has been called to a very sad case of death by drowning, in the Thames near Hurlingham on last Sunday morning, and the conduct of the police authorities as set forth in a letter in The Times of today, from which it appears that, by reason of the prolonged delay of the authorities in getting together a coroner's jury, the parents of Mr. Appleyard have been unable to get possession of the body, the inquest being delayed until to-day; and whether he will cause a thorough investigation to be made into the circumstances with a view to preventing any possibility of the recurrence of such a sad state of things.
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir. When my hon. friend drew my attention to this matter, I had already read the letter referred to, with a feeling of the deepest sympathy for the writer and his family. I know nothing of the circumstances, but I have communicated with the coroner concerned, and with the police, and I can assure my hon. friend that the case shall be fully and carefully investigated.

  Stornoway Mail Boats.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that neither the first nor second mate of Mr. David M'Brayne's thirty-five-year-old paddle steamer "Lovedale" possesses the qualifying navigation certificate; and, seeing that the vessel now carries the mails between Stornoway, Kyle, and Mallaig, and that recently, during the illness of the master, she had to be navigated from Stornoway to Kyle by a visitor who happened to possess a master's certificate, will he take such steps as may be necessary to secure the employment of fully qualified officers on this steamer.
  THE PRESIDENT OF the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The declaration of the Board of Trade Surveyors, made in November last, shows that the master, mate, and engineer of the vessel to which the hon. Member refers hold certificates of competency, as required by Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act. If, in the absence of the regular master, another
  562
  duly certificated master took charge of the vessel, that would not be contrary either to the Act or to any regulation of the Board of Trade.
  MR. WEIR: Is it the fact that the first and second masters were incompetent to navigate the vessel?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: They are not bound to hold a master's certificate.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire into this matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I had better have notice of any further Questions.

  Teddington District Water Charges.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Grand Junction Waterworks Company have recently raised their water rate charges 20 per cent. in the Teddington District; and will he ascertain whether this company have raised their charges in all the other districts they serve.
  THE PRESIDENT OF the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am informed that the Grand Junction Waterworks Company have not recently raised their charges for water supplied for domestic purposes either in Teddington or any other part of their district, and that if there has been an increased charge in any particular case, this is probably due to some addition to the supply for other than domestic purposes.

  Piccadilly Widening.
  MR COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can state the number of trees that have been recently cut down in the course of widening Piccadilly; what has been the cost of the alteration; and if it is proposed to provide any new open space in substitution for the portion of the Green Park that has been taken away.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Sixteen trees were cut

  563
  down, of which eight were in a decaying condition. Forty-eight new trees, on the other hand, have been planted either in the Park or on the footway. The expenditure on the works, some £8,500, is borne by the London County Council. On work within the Park the Office of Works has spent rather over £200. The answer to the last paragraph of my hon. friend's Question is in the negative.
  MR. COGHILL: Is not the congestion opposite Walsingham House greater than ever?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: My hon. friend asks this Question the first day after the opening. I am assured that the congestion at Hamilton Place is much less already.

  Newspaper Postage Rates to Canada.
  GENERAL LAUPJE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received any representations from the Postmaster General or the Government of Canada in reference to the rate of postage charged on newspapers and periodical literature addressed to the Dominion, and whether he is aware that resolutions on this subject passed by Canadian Chambers of Commerce have been sent to Chambers of Commerce in this country; whether he is aware that such mail matter is carried between Canada and the United States at the domestic rate in force in each country; and whether he is aware that as a result the circulation of United States periodicals is increasing largely in Canada, whilst the circulation of English newspapers is greatly falling off; what is the extra cost involved in the ocean carriage of this mail matter; and whether' he can see his way to permit of such mail matter for Canada being carried at the domestic rate chargeable in Great Britain, as all expenses connected with land carriage and deliveries are borne by the Canadian Post Office Department.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Some years ago there was an exchange of views between the then Postmaster General and the Canadian Post Office in regard to a suggestion made by that Office for a
  564
  reduced postage on "periodical literature" to Canada; but Her late Majesty's Government declined, on grounds of general policy, to entertain the question. The Postmaster General has no knowledge of any communication which has since passed on this subject between Canadian and British Chambers of Commerce. Of the fact that printed matter is carried between Canada and the United States at the domestic rate in each country he is aware, but not of the result in the circulation of American as compared with that of English newspapers. The annual cost of the Atlantic conveyance of all kinds of printed matter for Canada posted in the United Kingdom is about £12,000, and of this amount it is very roughtly estimated that about £7,000 is in respect of newspapers. The hon. Member asks that periodical literature and newspapers may be carried from the United Kingdom to Canada at the domestic rate. So far as periodical literature is concerned, that is already the case. Such matter is carried to Canada, and indeed to all parts of the world, at the rate of ½d. per two ounces, which is the domestic rate as regards all printed matter other than newspapers. As regards the latter, the Postmaster General can see no reason why an exception from the rate applicable to newspapers sent from the United Kingdom to other parts of the world should be made in favour of those for Canada; and a general reduction in the newspaper rate for British colonies or foreign countries would involve a serious loss of revenue.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Cannot the Postmaster General carry newspapers at the same rate as periodicals?.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Not without great loss to the revenue.

  Post Office Employees—Seniority Regulations.
  MR. FREEMAN THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post master General, whether it is a rule of the postal service for a man transferred from one town to another to become junior to the men at the office to which he is transferred without regard to length of service, and if the senior postmen have the choice of walks.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is the rule for officers transferred from one town to another, for reasons other than those directly for the benefit of the Department, to be placed at the foot of the class to which they are transferred. It is also the rule for the senior postmen of approved service to have the choice of walks.

  Richmond Postmen's Grievance.
  MR. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received petitions from the postmen of Richmond, Surrey, in 1900 and 1901 asking for an increased maximum; is he aware Mr. Lewin Hill produced a Table before the Tweedmouth Committee showing that postmen were better paid than police; whether in considering this request he has, in accordance with the rule as laid down by Mr. Lewin Hill, compared the Richmond postmen's pay with that of the Richmond police, seeing that the police are paid 35s., while the postmen's maximum is only 26s.; and seeing that the Secretary to the Treasury stated in the House on 20th February, 1899, that, where the cost of living was higher in proportion to the population, the Post Office was always ready to take them into consideration, and in view of the fact thas the police and all artisans and mechanics in Richmond are paid Metropolitan wages, will he place the Richmond postmen on the same scale as those of Putney and Wimbledon.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Memorials were duly considered and answered. In the Postmaster General's opinion no increase in the present scale of wages at Richmond is called for. It should be remembered that in addition to their maximum pay of 26s. a week the postmen can, if well conducted, obtain six stripes carrying extra pay of 1s. a week for each five years of service, and they also receive uniform clothing, boot allowance, free medical attendance, and pension on retirement. There is no such Rule as that suggested in the Question; nor are the wages of postmen regulated by those paid to the police
  566
  But in fixing the postmen's scale due consideration is paid to all the local circumstances affecting the question.

  Oxford Street Branch Post Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any steps are being taken to improve the sanitary condition of 10, Oxford Street branch office; and whether it is proposed to renew the lease of the premises.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is no reason to think that the conditions of the Branch Post Office at No. 10, Oxford Street are insanitary, but the tenancy will expire at Christmas next, and at present there is no intention of renewing it.

  Irish Magistracy.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many justices of the peace, exclusive of ex officios, have been appointed in Ireland since the formation of the present Government, and how many of them are Roman Catholics.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)—(For Mr. WYNDHAM): A Return containing this information, was granted on the Motion of the hon. Member for North Leitrim on the 4th March, † The Return is in course of preparation and will be laid on the Table as soon as possible.

  Irish School Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Commissioners of National Education (Ireland) can state what is the cause of the delay in the issuing of the salaries from the Education Office of W. Murphy, Cloghroe National School, Roll No. 7,242, and of Miss Murphy, National School, Bherings, Roll No. 4,187; and, seeing that payment of the salaries of these teachers was delayed the previous quarter, can he state what is the cause of these delays in payment of salary.
  † See (4) Debates, civ., 346.
  MR. ATKINSON: The salary of Mr. Murphy was withheld because the manager has not certified that his conduct was satisfactory. It has now been paid. The salary of Miss Murphy is withheld because the manager has not furnished satisfactory certificates in regard to her.

  Labourers' Cottage Schemes in the Kanturk Union.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Boardhave received the Report of Captain Connellan, Local Government Inspector, respecting the recent applications under the Labourers' Act in Kanturk Union, County Cork; and whether he can state why the application of John Cronin, labourer, of South Glynn, electoral division of Tincoora, for an additional half-acre plot was refused, although the occupant of the farm on which the cottage is built did not oppose the application.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Report was communicated to the District Council in November last. Cronin's application was rejected on the ground that his existing premises were in a dirty and neglected condition.

  Rent Recovery Action at Newcastle West.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the quarter-sessions, Newcastle West, County Limerick, on the 16th ultimo, in reference to the case of Mr. Eyre Jevers, J. P., of Glenduff Castle, Charleville, who sued Denis McCarthy, a peasant, to recover the sum of £26 rent due; is he aware that Mr. Jevers produced an extract, which he swore was an exact copy of the estate book, to prove that this sum was due, and that when the original books 'were produced, by order of the county court judge, it was found on examination that only £8 5s. was due; is he aware that the judge characterised the conduct of the plaintiff as reprehensible and the case as deplorable, and stated that he would bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor;
  568
  and will he say what action will be taken by the Lord Chancellor in regard to this gentleman.
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir, I have no information in reference to this matter. The Lord Chancellor informs me he has not received any communication from the county court judge in reference to it.

  Technical Instruction Grant.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a portion of the money voted by Parliament for technical instruction in Ireland is being withheld in Waterford and elsewhere; will he state the amount of the grant under Section 2 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, to which the County of Waterford would be entitled, and what is the reason that information as to this grant has not been furnished by the Department; whether any difficulties have been created by the Treasury as to the advancement of this money; and whether any correspondence has taken place between the Treasury and the South Kensington Department of Science and Art and the Department of Technical Instruction in Ireland on this subject; and, if so, has he any objection to publish it.
  MR. ATKINSON: This Question relates to the grant in aid of technical instruction under the Technical Instruction Acts of 1889 and 1891. The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction has been advised that there is some doubt whether the grants formerly paid under these Acts, the administration of which has been transferred to the Department, are now legally available upon the same conditions as previously, having regard to the provision of the Endowment of £55,000 for Technical Instruction under the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act of 1899. This point is engaging the consideration of the Department, but for the present an arrangement has been made by which those localities which have availed themselves of the provisions of the Acts of 1889 and 1891, will be entitled to a grant for three years from the

  569
  academic year, in respect of which the grants are now being determined. The amount of this grant will not exceed the amount payable under the Acts in respect of the year 1900–1901. No portion of the money voted by Parliament for technical instruction in Ireland is being withheld in Waterford or elsewhere. The sum of £3,500 was voted in the year 1901–1902 and is applicable to those localities which availed themselves of the provisions of the Acts. It does not appear that Waterford is one of these localities. In answer to the concluding inquiry, the correspondence that has taken place, and which is still proceeding, is departmental and it is not proposed to publish it.
  MR. DILLON: Is it not the fact that the Department of Agriculture more than a year ago issued their memoranda to the County Councils and Local Authorities in Ireland giving a solemn and unconditional pledge that an equal amount would be granted under these Acts to any rate raised by the Local Authority; and is it not also the fact that on the faith of that statement rates have been raised? Do the Government now intend to break their pledge?
  MR. ATKINSON: Negotiations therefore ask are for pending, and I must notice.
  MR. DILLON: I give notice that I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not reconsider the decision of the Government not to publish Papers.
  MR. ATKINSON: I shall have to communicate with the Department as to that.

  Afforestry in Ireland.
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government will institute an inquiry, by Royal Commission or otherwise, into the condition and prospects of forests and forest lands in Ireland.
  MR. ATKINSON: The question is under consideration; but no decision will be come to until the evidence taken by the Forestry Committee for Great Britain is available.

  Nenagh Labourers' Cottages Scheme.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at the Local Government Inquiry held at Nenagh, North Tipperary, on the 15th ultimo, with regard to the Guardians' proposed scheme for additional labourers' cottages in Nenagh Union, the application of four labourers, namely, J. Duff, J. Creamer, J. Starr, and J. M'Carthy, from the districts of Portroe and Castletown, were refused on the ground that they were working at the slate quarries; and, seeing that the evidence of the district councillors for the divisions showed that these men were bonâ fide labourers, inasmuch as they worked for the neighbouring farmers during the harvest season, being obliged to work in the quarries during other slack times, and that the were at present living in hovels, whether he will take steps to have these men and their families provided with proper houses and the plots of land under the Act.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Inspector's Report on this Inquiry, which extended over several days, has not yet been received.

  Annaghmore Rioters.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the Annaghmore, County Armagh, rioters will be brought to trial, when and where the magisterial investigation will take place, and whether the local justices of the peace will be entitled to adjudicate in the case.
  MR. ATKINSON: Those persons who the Crown may be in a position to prove took an active part in the riot will be proceeded against. As their number may be increased, I must decline, for obvious reasons, to state it at this stage. Those against whom the Crown can now proceed will be brought before the petty sessions of the district in which the riot occurred in the ordinary way, but I must decline to enter further into particulars, as Questions such as this, whatever their object, frequently result in causing resort to the canvassing of jurors and magistrates, and to other methods tending to defeat justice.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of this petty sessions district is Master of the local Orange Lodge?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. FLAVIN: Are these men to be tried by Removables?

  Gannon Estate, Athlone.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants in the neighbourhood of the Gannon Estate, near Athlone, which is now on the market for sale, have made representations to the Congested Districts Board with reference to the purchase of the said estates for sub-division; and whether the Board will make inquiries into the suitability of this property for acquisition by them with a view to meet the wishes of the people concerned.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Board have made inquiry, and find that this, estate is not suitable for the purpose of enlarging holdings or for migration.

  Education Bill—Standard of Education.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that Clause 6 of the Education Bill proposes to give the local education authorities, to be created under the Bill, the control of all secular education in the public elementary schools in their areas, it would be competent under the Bill for any local education authority to fix a standard of elementary education more restricted in its scope than that hitherto prescribed by the Whitehall Education Code.
  THE FIRST LORD OF the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No, Sir; it will be impossible for the local authority to evade; the standard set up by Whitehall, because the Department must be assured that the grants are earned before they are paid, and I take it that if the grants were paid improperly the Auditor General would surcharge them.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Do I understand that the Whitehall inspection will be continued under the Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, yes. Whitehall must have means to make itself acquainted with what is going on in the school. I do not pledge myself, of course, to the proposition that the inspection will remain absolutely unchanged in all its details.

  QUESTIONS UNDER THE NEW RULE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the subject, of Questions under the new Rules, which come into operation on Monday next. It will be remembered that the House decided that there was to be no such power of the subsequent rearrangement of Questions as that the important ones were to be put in the privileged earlier part of the list of Questions, and the less important at the end, where there was some possibility of their being excluded from having an oral reply. Of course, that decision of the House stands, and must be fully accepted. I do think, however, that it might be convenient if I could arrange that the first fifty starred Questions shall, as far as possible, be so arranged that those which are addressed to the same Minister shall be grouped together. I Lankly acknowledge that this would be convenient to the Ministers of hard-worked Departments, on whom, under the new system, a considerable additional strain will be thrown. If this grouping were agreed to, it must, of course, be carried out consistently with the arrangements already come to by the House, and must not in any way interfere with them. I think this proposal will not only be to the convenience of Ministers, but of Members asking Questions also.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: By what authority does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make this proposed arrangement?
  MR. DILLON: As one who first took exception to the proposed arrangement, I may say that I have no objection whatever to the proposal, as long as the classification is based exclusively on the convenience of the Ministers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  MR. BRYCE: I think it is the general feeling that the arrangement proposed should, at any rate, have a fair trial. There is a disposition in all parts of the House to do as much as we can for the convenience of hard-worked Ministers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is proposed to be done with the Questions subsequent to the first fifty?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At the doubtful margin of Questions there may be a little inconvenience to Ministers, but, if so, I am afraid I cannot avoid that. It is clear that we must not interfere with the decision of the House. I understand I have the permission of the House to do my best to make a convenient arrangement.
  MR. CHAPLIN: As I was one of those who took the strongest objection to the proposal as it stood in the Rule, I may say I entirely approve the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which will effect a reform that has long been wanted.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Are we to understand that on Monday only those Questions which are starred will be answered orally?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Rule comes in force on Monday.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYpointed out that it might happen that all the first fifty Questions would be addressed to one Minister, say the Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That could not happen, as we shall take the first fifty Questions as we find them. The Clerks at the Table would have no trouble in arranging them so as to suit the convenience of particular Ministers.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid there were Questions for Monday which were put down before the Rule was passed, and for which obviously an oral answer was desired. Seeing that they had no asterisk attached to them, how would they be treated?
  MR. SPEAKER: On Monday, it is to be assumed, the asterisked Questions on the list will be answered orally, and the others not necessarily so; I have no doubt, however, that there will be a certain elasticity in the method in which Ministers answer Questions on the first day, the better to meet the convenience of hon. Members. But the Rule will be in operation.
  MR. BLAKE: Would it not be a reasonable assumption that Questions put down before the Rule was passed were intended to be answered orally?
  MR. SPEAKER: I shall be glad to fall in with the general views of the House.

  EDITING OF QUESTIONS AT THE TABLE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will you kindly allow me, Mr. Speaker, to direct your attention to the subject of the editing of Questions at the Table, as a matter of order, and one affecting the rights of Members. I desire strictly to guard myself against anything like a personal attack or an imputation on the learned Gentleman at the Table, from whom I, in common with every other Member of the House, always receive the greatest courtesy, but it is the rule of Parliament that Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker alone, is the judge in regard to the editing of Questions. When I handed in my Question yesterday, I was informed by the clerk at the Table that it would have to be slightly altered. I did not object to that, but I do object to the elimination of the governing sentence of my Question without Mr. Speaker's authority. The sentence cannot be out of order, because a year ago I asked the self-same Question, and on that occasion it was not eliminated.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am informed that the hon. Member was told at the Table that the Question would be altered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is so.
  MR. SPEAKER: Then in that case the hon. Member should have come to me. The hon. Member says I am responsible for anything that is done. So ultimately I am; but surely the hon. Member does not suppose that every Question is submitted to, and edited by me before it is put into the list. If hon. Members are

  575
  not satisfied with the view of the clerks at the Table, from whom, I am sure, as the hon. Member says, they receive every courtesy, the question comes before me; and, as the hon. Member was informed that the Question was not a proper one to put on the Paper, he should have come to me. It would be quite intolerable if, whenever an hon. Member was not satisfied with what was done with his Question at the Table, he was to raise a debate in the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You somewhat misunderstand me, Sir. It is not my intention to raise a debate. I did not object to alteration, but when I was told by the clerk at the Table that my Question would be altered, I did not understand it to mean mutilation.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, when he was told that the Question would require to be altered, might have asked what the alteration was. If he found the effect of the alteration was to put the Question into a shape in which he did not wish to ask it he could have declined to ask it, or he could have put it down again and then have appealed to me. That is the proper course, and not to raise a question in the open House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am quite satisfied with the explanation. I hope the House will forgive me for trying jealously to guard our mutual interests. It is a fault in the right direction.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  REPAYMENT OF LOANS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  That they give leave to the Lord Welby to attend in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on Repayment of Loans by Local Authorities.
NEW PROCEDURE RULES.
[FIFTEENTH DAY'S DEBATE.]

STANDING ORDER NO. 1 (SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE).
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [8th April] to proposed Amendment to Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House.)
Which Amendment was, after the last Amendment—
"To insert the words," Wednesday, and Thursday at Two of the clock for an afternoon
576
sitting, and at Nine of the clock for an evening sitting. If the business appointed for an afternoon sitting is not disposed of at Eight of the clock, the sitting shall be suspended till Nine of the clock. At One of the clock at the evening sitting.' "—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
And the Amendment to the proposed Amendment was—
"To leave out lines 3 and 4."—(Mr. Channing.)
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
Question put, and negatived.
Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"After line 2, to insert the words 'and shall, unless previously adjourned, sit till half-past Twelve of the clock, when the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.' "—(Mr. Channing.)
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): The Government are prepared to accept the Amendment down to the word "clock."
Amendment to the proposed Amendment amended—
"By leaving out the words, 'when the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.' "
MR. DILLONsaid he would like to know exactly what they were doing. As he read the Amendment, the effect was to substitute half-past twelve for one o clock as the time at which the House must adjourn. He could not see the necessity for that. In nineteen cases out of twenty the business after midnight was disposed of in ten minutes. But occasionally it did occur that there was business down of a character to which no Member objected, and surely if it were desired they ought to have the power of dealing with it up till one o'clock. Of course, any single Member had the power of objecting, but when no objection was raised and when there was a desire to discuss the question, they ought to be able to do so until one o'clock. It seemed to him that the Amendment would deprive the House of a valuable privilege.
MR. GHANNINGsaid he put down the Amendment mainly in the interest of the officials of the House. If the feeling of the House was against him he would ask leave to withdraw.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he thought the suggestion was a good one.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESfeared they were getting a little bit mixed. Were the Government prepared to accept the Amendment; if not, would they state their reasons.
MR. LAMBERTsuggested that the Government should not accept the Amendment. He agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the House should, if it so desired, be allowed to go on with unopposed business till one o'clock.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the matter is one of very great importance, but on the whole I am disposed to consider that the House should have longer notice before altering the practice in this matter. Though there have been occasions on which the privilege of the House of sitting up after twelve o'clock, if it be a privilege, has been abused, there have been other occasions on which it has certainly proved of some utility. I think we should wait and gain a little more experience of these Rules, and that at any rate this change should not be pressed for the present.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid what was wanted was a Rule which would put a stop to the practice of making appeals to hon. Members to make their objections to Bills being taken after midnight. Let them have a strict Rule that all opposed business should stop at a fixed hour.
MR. BRYCEagreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that it was not desirable to press the change.
Amendment, as amended, to the proposed Amendment, put, and negatived.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved an Amendment in line 5. He said the First Lord of the Treasury had admitted
578
that one of the advantages to be derived from this Rule was that Supply would be absolutely stopped at midnight. That was a most desirable thing, but did the Rule carry it out? At present there were no fewer than six occasions when such business could goon after midnight. First, there was Report of Committee of Ways and Means; then there was the Budget Bill, which certainly ought not to be debated after midnight; then there were Bills orginating in Ways and Means; next, proceedings taken in pursuance of Acts of Parliament and of Standing Orders; fifthly, there was specified business as to which the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule had been moved; and finally, there was the general suspension of the Rule. These had the effect of defeating the Twelve o'clock Rule, which the First Lord was pledged to save.
MR. SPEAKER: These exceptions are untouched by the hon. Member's Amendment.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he must in that case have drawn his Amendment very badly. The First Lord had certainly declared it his intention that business on Supply nights should cease at twelve o'clock, but as the Rule stood that would not be secured, and he hoped words would be introduced to ensure it.
Another Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 5, after the first word 'at,' to insert the words 'midnight at the evening sittings on Thursdays the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put, and at.' "—(Mr. Gibson, Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend has practically admitted that the Amendment does not carry out the object which he has in view. It is not one that I can accept. He has misinterpreted my statement on this subject. What I have stated on several occasions is that on Supply nights the business of Supply should terminate at twelve o'clock unless the Rule is suspended, and that no other business should come on after midnight. I hope, seeing that the Amendment does not carry out either the hon. Member's object or views, it will not be pressed.
MR. DILLONsaid it would be unfair to adopt the Amendment, because it proposed to do what was certainly not contemplated by the Government.
MR. BARTLEYsaid it might be inconvenient to press this, and therefore he hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That the words, as amended, be inserted in the Standing Order.":
MR. DILLONsaid the result of the new system of having two sittings of the House instead of one throughout the session on Government days would be not to expedite but to obstruct business. He was absolutely convinced that before three or four years were over Ministers themselves would regret that this change had been made. The First Lord of the Treasury hardly contended that the change would relieve from the strain of work Members who had been regular attenders of the House. He believed it was the opinion of the older and more experienced Members of the House that the effect of the Rule would be to sacrifice the efficiency of the House of Commons as an administrative machine in the interests of those who sought their ease and pleasure in social enjoyment. He also thought the character of the debates would suffer severely under this Rule. The closure and the enormous pressure and multiplication of business had already, within the last few years, seriously injured that character. There was no doubt that the result of the great pressure on the House of Commons had been to degrade and deteriorate the character of their discussions. This change would, in his opinion, greatly promote this process. It was a commonplace to men who took any interest in the proceedings of the House of Commons that at the dinner hour, when the attendance was small, the young Members got their opportunity, and he believed that the cutting out of the dinner hour would have the effect, to a large extent, of for many, years muzzling the young Members. The consequence would be that the
580
debates would be confined more and more to the Members of the Front Benches. He was not at all certain that from the point of view of the Irish Party the change would not increase their power. It was quite possible that the new arrangement between nine and ten o'clock might give them their opportunity. At all events, they would study it and see what they could do. He thought the Irish Party would be found a bit more powerful under the new Rules than under the old, and probably Ministers might be surprised at some of the developments that might arise.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has told us that these new Rules, or at any rate this portion of them,. will not facilitate the rapid transaction of business. He did me the justice to say that I never pretended it would. I have no ground for thinking, and I have never for a moment suggested, that this particular set of provisions will have the effect of rendering public business more expeditious than it has been. It may or it may not, but, at all events, it was not with that view that I pressed it on the House. I think, however, it will have the effect—and this is a consideration to which full justice has not been done—of enabling most important business which does not rank as first-class business to be transacted. For example, there are small questions which come before the House to which, under the new system, it will be possible to allocate one evening sitting to getting rid of them, but which cannot be got rid of by the old system. It seems to be impossible, I venture to say with the utmost confidence, to interrupt a Second Reading debate on a first-class Bill to deal with these important, though relatively insignificant, matters. They do not take very much time, and I think in that way the new system will facilitate business. But the hon. Gentleman tells us that it will have a deteriorating effect on our debates. Well, I am as old a Member as the hon. Gentleman—indeed, I think I am older as a Member of the House as well as older in years; and my memory goes back to the days of Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone. I really do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has been this deterioration in the quality of our debates

581
We have not those heroic figures among us now, but the idea that the debates were invariably interesting between 1874 and 188, for example, is, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, an entire delusion. As to the idea that the Front Bench Members monopolise more time now than they used to do then, surely the hon. Gentleman knows that, though the speeches from both Front Benches may be very inferior now, they are incomparably shorter than those which used to be delivered as a matter of course by thegreat leaders when I first entered the House. In another part of his speech the hon. Member said the dinner hour was the opportunity of the younger Members. If the dinner hour under the old system of the House had all that value for the training of Members, I do not see why the hour we shall now have between nine and ten should not have the same value. I do not think I have anything more to say except this. The change generally has been introduced for the advantage of the independent and unofficial Member. Possibly the hon. Gentleman may succeed in the manœuvres which he has hinted he means to try in the future. But of this I am certain—the old system could not continue, and, whatever modifications may be suggested in the future, no Leader of the House will, after a little experience of the new system, come down to the House to suggest a return to the single sitting, lasting from half-past three to twelve or one o'clock, with half-an-hour for dinner, and to the standing inconveniences of that old practice. Whatever evils the new system may bring forth, they will be found to be less intolerable than the evils of the old, and I look forward with a firm hope that the result of these Rules may bear the promise of a brighter day.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As a still older Member of the House than the right hon. Gentleman, recollecting those heroic times to which he has alluded, I do not venture an opinion as to whether the debates then were more interesting than now. The days between 1874 and 1880 were certainly more exciting, including, as they did, the great controversies on the Russo-Turkish war. I was here in
582
those times. They resembled the present times in regard to the hopeless position of the Opposition, which always had a majority of more than 100 against them. But the question before the House is whether business will get on better under the new system than under the old, and I do not think it will. I believe that if you have a great measure, and go on with it continuously in single sittings, you will get through it sooner. I cannot appreciate the only argument of the right hon. Gentleman, which is that the new system affords an opportunity of finding a place for some small measures that it is wanted to pass. If the Government really want to do that, all the Government have to do is to adjourn the debate on their larger measures at eleven or half-past eleven.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That would be a debateable Motion. People who did not want the other measure passed would come down and debate the Motion for adjournment.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: You have plenty of means of avoiding that. The Government have measures for shortening discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With two divisions, which might take forty minutes.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, these objections do not carry conviction to my mind, and I remain of the opinion that progress of business would be better assisted by continuous sittings.
MR. CHAPLINcould not share the opinion of his right hon. friend as to the debates in past times, and wished the tone and character of the House then could be exhibited more, frequently in the present day. He and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire came into the House at the same time, and his maiden speech followed the right hon. Gentleman's. He shared the right hon. Gentleman's doubts as to whether they would make better progress under the altered Rules.
Question put.
The House divided.
While the division was in progress,
MR. POWERsaid May I ask, Sir, on a point of order, if there is any way of communicating to Members of this House who may be in the House of Lords, that a division is taking place in this House. I was there with an hon. friend, and did not hear any division bell.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no division bell in the House of Lords.
MR. POWER: Could it not be arranged that Members of the House, who may be in the House of Lords,

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt.Sir Alex. F.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cranborne, Viscount

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hogg, Lindsay

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Denny, Colonel

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Arrol, Sir William

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

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hoult, Joseph

Austin, Sir John

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Houston, Robert Paterson

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Doughty, George

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Baird, John George Alexander

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Balcarres, Lord

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

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

Duke, Henry Edward

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Kenyon, Hon Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Balfour, RtHn.Gerald W. (Leeds

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.)

Banbury, Frederick George

Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kimber, Henry

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Faber, George Denison (York)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Beckett, Ernest William

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Beresford, Lord Charles William

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

Lawson, John Grant

Bignold, Arthur

Finch, George H.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Bond, Edward

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fisher, William Hayes

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

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

Brassey, Albert

Flower, Ernest

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Loyd, Archic Kirkman

Brymer, William Ernest

Galloway, William Johnson

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Garfit, William

Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Macdona, John Gumming

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

Maconochie, A. W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

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

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

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

Charrington, Spencer

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

Grenfell, William Henry

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Coddington, Sir William

Gunter, Sir Robert

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hall, Edward Marshall

Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

Collings, Rt Hon. Jesse

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Morrell, George Herbert

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Morrison, James Archibald

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

should be made aware that a division is on in this House?
MR. SPEAKER: I am not sure, but my recollection is that when I have been; at the bar of the House of Lords in, past years when a division was going on in this House, an intimation to that effect reached me.
MR. POWER: No intimation reached me, and I now claim to have my vote recorded.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The tellers are at the Table.
(4.54.) Ayes, 206; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 163.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Round, James

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Nicholson, William Graham

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wills, Sir Frederick

Plummer, Walter R.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

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

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

Purvis, Robert

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Randles, John S.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Worsley-Tavlor, Henry Wilson

Rankin, Sir James

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stock, James Henry

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Richards, Henry Charles

Thornton, Percy M.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

Tritton, Charles Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Valentia, Viscount

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Robinson, Brooke

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc. Stroud

Grant, Corrie

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Hammond, John

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

Barlow, John Emmott

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

O'Dowd, John

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Bartley, George C. T.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Shee, James John

Blake, Edward

Helme, Norval Watson

Partington, Oswald

Boland, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Paulton, James Mellor

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Holland, William Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Price, Robert John

Burke, E. Haviland-

Horniman, Frederick John

Rea, Russell

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Reckitt, Harold James

Caldwell, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Reddy, M.

Cameron, Robert

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Carew, James Laurence

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Kitson, Sir James

Runciman, Walter

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Russell, T. W.

Channing, Francis Allston

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Leamy, Edmund

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crean, Eugene

Leng, Sir John

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Crombie, John William

Lewis, John Herbert

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

Soares, Ernest J.

Delany, William

Lundon, W.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Sullivan, Donal

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Donelan, Captain A.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

Doogan, P. C.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Tomkinson, James

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Fadden, Edward

Wallace, Robert

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Govern, T.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dunn, Sir William

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Weir, James Galloway

Edwards, Frank

M'Kean, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Elibank, Master of

Mooney, John J.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Ellis, John Edward

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

Emmott, Alfred

Murnaghan, George

Young, Samuel

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Murphy, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Ffrench, Peter

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Mr. Dillon and Mr. M'Kenna.

Flynn, James Christopher

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Fuller, J. M. F.

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

Furness, Sir Christopher

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

MR. POWER: May I claim to have my vote recorded. Another Member and myself were in the House of Lords, and we were anxious to take part in this division, but no notice was conveyed to us that the division was on.
MR. SPEAKER: The vote cannot be recorded. The strict duty of the hon. Member is to be in attendance in the House of which he is a Member. Attending the House of Lords is a luxury.
Other Amendments made to the Standing Order—
"By inserting, in line 9, after the word 'at,' the wordshalf-past Seven of the chick, and 'at'; by leaving out, in line 9, the words 'Thursdays and Fridays,' and inserting the words 'Wednesdays and Thursdays ;' by leaving out, in line 10, the word 'Wednesdays,' and inserting the word 'Fridays;' by leaving out, in line 16, from the word "put," to end of paragraph; by leaving out, in line 27, the words 'and the Orders of the Day not disposed of at the close of the sitting shall stand for the next day on which the House shall sit,' and inserting the words 'and after the Business under consideration at half-past Seven of the clock has been disposed of no other business shall be taken.'"—[Mr. A. J. Balfour.]
Amendment proposed—
"In line Hi, to leave out from the word 'put' to end of paragraph."—[Mr. A. J. Balfour.]
Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Amendment was another attempt to take the management of its own business out of the hands of the House. The words proposed to be omitted were as follows—
"And the business then under consideration, and any business subsequently appointed shall be appointed for the next day on which the House shall sit, unless the speaker ascertains by the preponderance of voices that a majority of the House desires that such business should be transferred until a later day."
Why should those words be omitted? He did not know that the House had ever refused to give some indication of its desires as to when business should be resumed. The Amendment would give to a Minister in charge of a Bill the right to select the day to which it should be postponed, and he could not understand why the Rule should not be left as it was.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is the common and settled practice of the House, that a Member in charge of a Bill shall name the day when it is to be taken; and nothing could be more inconvenient than that that practice should be interrupted by some expression of opinion, given without debate or discussion, which would upset the order that the Member in charge of a Bill desired. The Amendment is in the direction of regularising and rendering more dignified our proceedings.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that when a Bill was ordered for Second Reading, it became the property of the House, and the House should reserve to itself the right to deal with it. Ordinarily speaking, it was more convenient that a Member, or a section of Members, should look after a particular Bill; but the House should not give up its indisputable right in the matter.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I only rise to express my entire accord with the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Thanet Division. We ought not to infringe on the principle that the House has absolute and complete right to deal with every Bill, and that it ought not to be dictated to by any Member.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Surely this is a pedantic plea. The proper way of dealing with Bills is to reject them on Second Reading, amend them, or pass them, and send them up to the other House. But this quite informal proceeding, without notice, without a division, is a most unbusinesslike way of dealing with a Bill. Although it is quite true that the House does abandon the right, the right has been so little used that no Member thinks it necessary to martial the forces against a Bill in order to see that the business is carried on in the way that he desires. If this power were at all used it would be necessary for, say, the Irish Members to come down here in force whenever they desired to transfer a Bill in which they were interested to a particular day, lest by a preponderance of voices the majority might unexpectedly fix some other day very inconvenient to those interested. It would be

589
a great pity not to stop this possible loop-hole for irregularity, and I trust, the House will support the Government.
Question put and negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Standing Order, after line 29, to insert the words—
"All business appointed for any sitting and not disposed of before the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting, or until such other sitting on any day on which the House ordinarily sits as the Member in charge of the business may appoint."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved the substitution of "House" for "Member in charge of the business." He failed to see why the Member in charge of the business should have the sole right of appointing the day on which the business should be resumed. It was another instance of the manner in which power was being taken away from the House. An entirely new principle was involved, and he hoped the Government would agree to his Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Standing Order—
"To leave out the words 'Member in charge of the business,' and insert the word 'House.'—(Mr. Gibson Bowles).
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment.
SIR HENRY FOWLERasked whether, under the existing Rules, if the day named was objected to, it was not possible for hon. Members to challenge the point and take a division, or move the substitution of some other day.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that could not be done after twelve o'clock. The Standing Order provided that in case of any difference of opinion the question should be decided according to the voices.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: But it really rests with the House—with the preponderance of voices?
MR. SPEAKER: At present, in ease of dispute.
MR. BRYCEsaid he had once suffered under the existing practice. He had left-directions for a Bill to be put off to a certain day, and, relying on the usage of the House, had gone away. When the Bill was called, however, another Member succeeded in getting it put off to a later day, with the result that it was lost for the session. But in principle he agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn. He thought the House ought to retain its control, and that Members must trust to the good sense and good feeling of the House. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred it would be found that the usage of the House would be observed.
MR. DILLONpointed out that in the only instance referred to in which this power had been used it had been abused. It was not reasonable that a Member interested in a private Bill should be forced to bring his friends down every week and wait until twelve o'clock, for fear of an inconvenient day being sprung upon him. In spite of protests, if he had not sufficient of his friends around him, the Bill might, without debate or division, merely by incoherent voices, be adjourned until the month of August. A more cruel way of killing a Bill he could not conceive, and he agreed with the First Lord in saying that if the power had I been habitually abused it would have been swept away long before.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERthought the idea of any one Member arrogating to himself the right of arranging business ought not to be tolerated, and he could conceive gross abuses arising from a Member having the power to fix a day without consulting the wishes of the House.
MR. BANBURY,as one who generally remained in the House until twelve o'clock, said he had never known this privilege to be availed of.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid this was a most dangerous Amendment. Members who were not in the habit of being in the House at twelve o'clock would be tempted, if this proposal were agreed to, to be in attendance at that hour for the purpose of disposing of some

591
Bill to which they had a dislike. He hoped the hon. Member for King's Lynn would not allow his opposition to private Members' Bills to carry him to the length of pressing this Amendment.
Question put and agreed to. Original Question put and agreed to. Words inserted in Standing Order.
Other Amendments made to the Standing Order, by inserting—
"In line 34, at end of fifth paragraph, the words 'or to the following effect That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion on the interruption of business at this afternoon's fitting, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business at this evening's sitting,' and by leaving out, in line 36, the word 'Resolution,' and inserting the word 'Order.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Standing Order No. I, "Sittings of the House," as finally adopted, (and now superseding Standing Orders Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8), is as follows :—
That, unless the House otherwise order, the House shall meet every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, at Two of the clock for an Afternoon Sitting, and at Nine of the clock for an Evening Sitting.
At one of the clock at the Evening Sitting the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put, unless a Bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means, or Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, or otherwise exempted as hereinafter provided from the operation of this Standing Order, be then under consideration.
That at half past seven of the clock and at midnight on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, except as aforesaid, and at half-past five of the clock on Fridays, the proceedings on any business then under consideration shall be interrupted, and, if the House be in Committee, the Chairman shall leave the Chair and make his Report to the House, and if a Motion has been proposed for the Adjournment of the House or of the Debate, or in Committee, that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, every such dilatory Motion shall lapse without Question put.
Provided always that on the interruption of Business the Closure may be moved, and if moved, or if proceedings under the Closure
592
Rule be then in progress, the Speaker or Chairman shall not leave the Chair until the Questions consequent thereon and on any further Motion, as provided in the Rule "Closure of Debate," have been decided.
That after the Business under consideration at Twelve, and half-past Five respectively, has been disposed of, no opposed Business shall be taken; and after the Business under consideration at half-past Seven of the clock has been disposed of no other Business shall be taken.
All business appointed for any Sitting, and not disposed of before the termination of the Sitting, shall stand over until the next Sitting, or until such other Sitting on any day on which the House ordinarily sits as the Member in charge of the business may appoint.
That a Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without Amendment of Debate, to the following effect :"That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion at Twelve this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order 'Sittings of the House'; "or to the following effect: "That the proceedings on any specified business, if under discussion on the interruption of business at this Afternoon's Sitting, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business at this Evening's Sitting."
Provided always, That after any business exempted from the operation of this Order is disposed of, the remaining business of the Sitting shall be dealt with according to the provisions applicable to business taken after midnight.
Provided also that the Chairman of Ways and Means shall take the Chair as Deputy Speaker, when requested so to do by Mr. Speaker, without any formal communication to the House. And Mr. Speaker shall nominate, at the commencement of every Session, a panel of not more than five Members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees, when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (RULES OF PROCEDURE).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Notices of Motions now standing for any Tuesday stand for the Wednesday evening sitting in the same week, and that the business now appointed for any Wednesday stand for the Friday sitting in the same week."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the object of the Amendment which he had to move was simply to arrange the order in which the transfer to the following Friday should be made. A very hard case might arise in the case of the two Fridays reserved for the later stages of private Members' Bills after Whitsuntide. A private Member might have got a Bill through the Grand Committee and put down for the first Wednesday after Whitsuntide. Subsequently another Member might get a Bill through the Committee, and put it down for the Friday and unless the Amendment he was proposing was inserted, the second Bill, which had got through the Committee at a later sitting, would have precedence. He did not think that the object of the First Lord of the Treasury was to allow that state of things.
Amendment made—
"By adding, at the end of the Question, the words 'and, subject to Standing Order No. 12, shall have priority as if set down for Friday at the date at which it was set down for Wednesday.'—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen); and by adding, at the end of the last Amendment, the words 'and Questions of which notice has been already given shall be treated as if they were distinguished by an asterisk.'"—(Mr. Blake.)
Ordered, That the Notices of Motions now standing for any Tuesday stand for the Wednesday evening sitting in the same week, and that the business now appointed for any Wednesday stand for the Friday sitting in the same week, and, subject to Standing Order No. 12, shall have priority as if put down for Friday, at the date at which it was put down for Wednesday, and Questions of which notice has been already given shall be treated as if they were distinguished by an asterisk.

MOTIONS FOE BILLS.
Standing Order No. 16 read as followeth :—
That on Tuesdays and Fridays, and, if set down by the Government, on Mondays and Thursdays, Motions for
594
leave to bring in Bills, and for the nomination of Select Committees, may be set down for consideration at the commencement of public business. If such Motions be opposed, Mr. Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves and from the Member who opposes any such Motion respectively, may, without further debate, put the Question thereon, or the Question that the debate be now adjourned.
Amendment made to the Standing Order—
"In line 1, by leaving out the word 'Fridays,' and inserting the word 'Wednesdays.' "—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not now move the Resolution on the Paper making these amended Rules Standing Orders of the House.

SUPPLY ON MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, AND THURSDAY.
Standing Order No. 55 read as followeth :—
That the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means shall be fixed for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and may also be appointed for any other day on which the House shall meet for despatch of business.
Amendment made to the Standing Order—
"In line 2, by leaving out the word 'Friday' and inserting the word 'Thursday.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question with regard to one of the remaining Orders which has only been partially dealt with. I refer to the Rule relating to "order in debate," which has been partially amended and left in a most anomalous condition. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to go on

595
with this Rule. It is undoubtedly a Rule of the first importance, and I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will be able to tell us that the Government intend to persevere with this Rule, and do their best to pass it before the end of the session.
MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman also inform the House what the course of business will be next week? Will the debate on the Second Reading of the Education Bill be continued until it is finished?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rather hope that three days will be sufficient for the debate on the Education Bill, but if my hopes are disappointed I shall have to ask the House to continue the debate on Thursday evening.
MR. BRYCE: From such information as reaches us, I think it will be impossible to finish the debate on the Second Reading of the Education Bill before Thursday, having regard to the fact that only half of Wednesday's sitting will be at the disposal of the Government. I do not think there will be any possibility of the debate ending on Wednesday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford has asked me a Question about one of these Rules. In the present condition of public business I cannot suggest any time in which it will be possible to go on with these Rules; but I have every reason to believe that the House will be able to finish them before the end of the session.
MR. CHAPLIN: That is the intention of the Government?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Out of twenty-four proposals only twelve have yet been passed. Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply apply to all the remaining twelve 1
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confined my reply to the Question which was addressed to me. I cannot say anything further.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Shall we be supplied with copies of these new Orders, so that we shall know where we are?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Shall we have an official record of how our Rules stand? I have gone through the records at the Vote Office, and I find one Paper contradicts another, and none of them appear consistent with the Blue Paper originally laid on the Table. To avoid mistakes, I hope my right hon. friend will have a true record of all the Rules circulated.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no ambiguity about them, and no contradictions. The House has now dealt with a certain number of propositions which have now become sessional Orders.
MR. BRYCE: Perhaps I may ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which arises out of a matter he referred to either yesterday or on Tuesday. As this may be the last opportunity of enabling the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement upon this point, I wish to ask when he proposes to appoint the Committee he has promised to inquire into the conduct of private business? I think hon. Members generally feel that we have left private business in a very unsatisfactory state, and I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman contemplates appointing that Committee this session.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, at a very early date, I hope.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock till Monday-next.

The Lord Ashburton took the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAM-ROADS BILL [H.L.]
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  BRISTOL WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendment considered, and agreed to.
  WREXHAM WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  BIRMINGHAM AND MIDLAND TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 14th of April and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed.
  WIGAN CORPORATION BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 13th of February and 18th of April discharged; and Bill committed.
  RICKMANSWORTH GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  SHEPTON MALLET GAS BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
  BUXTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
  SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.] (No 59.)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Bothwell and Uddingston Gas, Cirencester Gas, Garw and Ogmore Gas, Rothwell Gas, Skegness Gas, and Wellingborough Gas; And
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.] (No 60.)
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Beccles Water, Burnham and District Water, Croft (Leicestershire) Water, Borough of Portsmouth Water, and Woodford Hulse Water; were presented by the Lord Raglan (for the Earl of Dudley); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
  DARLEY DALE WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations for Secondary Day Schools (from 1st August, 1902, to 31st July, 1903); presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 28th April, 1902, declaring that William T. Archer, Royal Laboratory, War Office, was

  543
  appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  REPAYMENT OF LOANS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  Leave given to the Lord Welby to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons, pursuant to Message of yesterday, if he think fit; and his Lordship consenting thereto, a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
PETITION.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petition against the sale of, on Sundays, of meeting at Bournemouth; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—ADVANCES TO PRISONERS OF WAR.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYN: My Lords, I beg to ask his Majesty's Government (1) For what purpose was £25 to each officer and £5 to each man, being prisoners of war in Pretoria, supplied on or about 25th May, 1900; (2) Was such money a gift, an allowance, or a grant, or was it in lieu of pay; (3) If in lieu of pay, in what form was it entrusted to the late Mr. Adalbert Hay, and with what instructions; (4) Will such instructions be laid on the Table of the House; (5) Was such allowance, grant, or gift intended for every prisoner of war, combatant or non-combatant, civilian or soldier. I have divided the Questions into five sections in order that I may, if possible, get a specific and full reply. I have put the Questions on behalf of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who were prisoners of war at the time, and who, when they received the money, had no grounds for believing that it was not a gift but an advance, which the War Office has since represented it to be. In fact, the general impression among the officers and men was that they were not entitled to receive pay during the time they were prisoners of war. If I may be allowed to do so I
  544
  will quote one paragraph from many petitions and letters I have received from men in the South African Field Force—
  "The £1 which Mr. Wood of the Natal Bank issued to us with the understanding that it was part of £5 that was raised by subscription at home for the prisoners of war, has been stopped out of our regimental pay,"
  which is most unjust. I have a personal interest in the matter, because I was a prisoner of war in Pretoria as a non-combatant at the time the money was distributed; and no one was more thankful to the War Office than myself for this donation of £25. But when I returned home I was asked to refund the money, and I replied, as politely as I could, that I had no intention of doing so unless I was compelled by law. The whole question, of course, turns on whether the money was a gift, an advance, or in lieu of pay; but I may say that the officers were so certain that it was a gift that they gave away the greater part of it afterwards to those whom they thought most deserving.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, before answering the series of Questions which the noble Earl has put, perhaps I might explain the circumstances under which this money was advanced to the officers and men who were so unfortunate as to be prisoners of war at that time in Pretoria. At the beginning of 1900, when the noble Earl was himself a prisoner of war, Mr. Hay, then American Consul in Pretoria, offered his kind services with a view to having a certain sum of money distributed through the Standard Bank among the prisoners of war. The offer was availed of, and the money was distributed, as the noble Lord has correctly stated, at the rate of £25 to the officers and £5 to the non-commissioned officers and men. There were also some civilian prisoners of war, including the noble Earl, who participated in these advances. The noble Earl first asks for what purpose the money was supplied to the prisoners of war. It was supplied to them because it was deemed they were in want of money. In reply to the noble Earl's second Question, it was not a gift, nor an allowance, nor a grant, nor was it in lieu of pay. It was an advance. It was not entrusted to

  545
  Mr. Hay in any particular form, nor I did Mr. Hay receive any particular instructions, except that he was to distribute it to the prisoners at the rate; of £25 to the officers and £5 to the non-commissioned officers and men. When the advances were arranged for, it was not known that there were any civilian prisoners of war at Pretoria, nor was it primarily intended that those non-combatants should receive advances But the money was given to the civilian prisoners of war, and the noble Earl was among those who received £25. It is true that the practice or rule has been that non-commissioned officers and men are not entitled to pay while prisoners of war. That practice, or rule, has been considerably modified of late. But I do not think it is possible for anybody, except the noble Earl, to have imagined that this sum of money was a free gift or grant from the Government to soldiers who had been so unfortunate as to be taken prisoners of war. I cannot understand how the idea has arisen in the mind of the noble Earl, because a prisoner of war is not so useful to the country as to induce the Government to place a premium on men in that position. The noble Earl asks further how much of the money has been recovered. I am able to inform the noble Earl that in all £8,17010s. was advanced, and£7,97610s. has been recovered. The balance of £194, including the £25 advanced to the noble Earl, has been written off as irrecoverable. That amount may be stated to represent, generally, allowances to civilians who were in indigent and destitute circumstances, and it has been written off as a bad debt. It appears, from a letter written to Mr. Hay by the manager of the Standard Bank, who distributed the money, that the sum of £25 was advanced to the noble Earl on the distinct understanding that he should refund it, if necessary, to the Imperial Governments
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYN: Is that in writing?
  LORD RAGLAN: I believe its.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYN: I deny it.
  LORD RAGLAN: I was much astonished that a person in the position of the noble Earl should have taken up the line he has done. I am still more astonished that he should bring the matter before your Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYN: I beg to say that I did it entirely on behalf of the officers, the non-commissioned officers, and men, who were absolutely under the belief that the money was a gift to them. One man who was under this impression, instead of husbanding the money, went and bought a pot of jam for ten shillings.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I wish to supplement briefly what has been said by my noble friend. These officers were prisoners of war. We had no means of access to them. We knew them to be without funds. We desired, if possible, to provide them with funds. Considerable arrears of pay were due to them, and an arrangement was made; not without some difficulty, under which the Standard Bank undertook the distribution of certain sums with the aid of the United States Consul in Pretoria, Mr. Adalbert Hay, for whose kindly and considerate assistance I do not think we can be too grateful, and whose untimely death last year was lamented by all who had the good fortune to know him, or were aware of the manner in which he was beloved by those nearest to him. There is no doubt whatever that these grants of money were intended as advances to the officers. I have here with me some documents relating to this matter. One is a letter to Lord Loch, with whom the idea of thus assisting the captive officers first originated. Lord Loch was a director of the Standard Bank, and he was good enough to suggest to me that through the agency of that bank it might be possible to bring funds within reach of the prisoners of war. In the War Office letter to Lord Loch it was distinctly stated—
  "Lord Lansdowne wishes to arrange for an advance of £25 to each officer and £5 to each soldier who is a prisoner."
  That shows what originally was the intention of the War Office. Further on, I find a letter written by the Accountant

  547
  General of the War Office to the manager of the bank, in which reference is made to a former letter on the subject of advances to British prisoners. Then comes a telegram sent from the War Office to the General Officer in command of the Communications, which runs—
  "Instruct the Chief Paymaster to obtain from the American Consul at Pretoria, as soon as possible, receipts from prisoners for advances to them."
  So that throughout the correspondence the word "advance" was used. My noble friend said with truth that there was evidence to show that when this payment was made to the noble Earl, he was told it was an advance. The noble Earl challenged that, and asked whether the evidence was in writing. It is in writing. It is a letter from the manager of the bank, Mr. Leigh Wood, to Mr. Hay, dated 12th June, 1900—
  "I would further remark that payment to Lord Rosslyn was made on the representation that he was lately an officer in Thorneycroft's Mounted Infantry. … As there was, in my opinion, some doubt as to the claim of Lord Rosslyn, who is also a war correspondent, the amount was paid over under the express understanding with both gentlemen, that a refund would be made by them to the Imperial Government, if necessary."
  So far as to the intention with which the money was advanced to the noble Lord. When we came to settle accounts with the recipients, a letter was written in the Financial Department of the War Office to the noble Lord—to be strictly correct, the letter was originally written to the newspaper for which the noble Lord acted, suggesting that, as other recipients of these grants were refunding the amounts they had received, and as the amount was an advance, he possibly would cause a remittance to be made to the Chief Paymaster.
  THE Earl OF ROSSLYN: I understand "refunding" to mean a "stoppage" of the pay of officers of the Army.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It comes to the same thing. The noble Lord replied—
  "I asked for no money. I was handed a sum of £25, which, I understood, was a present from Her Majesty's Government."
  and he wont on to say that he had no intention, unless compelled by law, to
  548
  refund the money. We thought the noble Lord might possibly not be quite aware of the nature of the arrangement made, and a letter—I hope a courteous letter—was written to him on August 16th, explaining fully the circumstances under which these advances had been made. At the close of the letter, I find we stated that—
  "A civilian cannot he exempt from the obligation to repay which is recognised by, and incumbent upon, every officer and man who received the payment. No such gift was made to imprisoned officers and men in Her Majesty's service, and there can obviously be no reason why such a gift should be made to your Lordship."
  And then, not quite knowing our man, we expressed a pious hope that a refund might be made. The noble Lord replied that our letter savoured of an appeal to his generosity, that it was not explained to him that the money was an advance, and he proceeded to tell us that our conduct, in requiring a settlement from the imprisoned officers, was scandalous, and he ended by announcing that he adhered to his intention to advise the Daily Mail not to refund the grant made to him, "for which I was most grateful." I do not mind telling your Lordships that we consulted the Treasury solicitor, who advised us that, on the whole, it would scarcely be worth our while to institute proceedings with the object of compelling the noble Lord to disgorge this small sum of money, which had unintentionally passed into his possession, and we accordingly left him alone. I do not know whether he is to be altogether congratulated on the result; but, be that as it may, I confess it surprises me that he should come down to your Lordships' House, and proclaim the fact that he has succeeded in retaining possession of a sum of money which it was never intended he should receive, to which he had no moral right whatever, and which other recipients, infinitely more entitled to the generosity of the public, have refunded, without any complaint whatever.
  THE Earl of R OSSLYN: If the War Office thought they were entitled to the money, they could just as well have prosecuted a poor man as a man who was able to pay. The Under Secretary himself tells me that a large portion of the money has not been repaid!
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That includes the officers who have not been heard of since. It is a very small deficit on so large a sum.
  THE EARL OF ROSSLYN: I can only tell you that I put down this Question on the Paper after consultation with the gentleman in question, Mr. Leigh Wood, who is entirely of opinion that I am right. When I asked him the question, "Is it for civilians as well?" he replied, "It is for every prisoner of war." There was no mention of advances. If the War Office like to have the £25, I shall be pleased to send it to them.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-TRANSPORT SERVICE.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have still under consideration the representation made to them as to due and proper recognition being given to the services of the executive of merchant ships which have been engaged in the transport service during the present war; and whether, in view of the fact that all other branches of those engaged in the conduct of the war have been rewarded, both pecuniarily and by decorations, they are now ready to recognise in a similar manner the captains and officers of our transport vessels, whose onerous and responsible duties have, according to the highest authorities, been carried out with the utmost efficiency and marvellous immunity from accident. In putting this Question I should like to say a few words, not in praise of the magnificent service that has been rendered to the nation by the captains and officers of the Mercantile Marine, for that has already been so highly praised and commended by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the highest naval and military authorities, and by all the officers of both services and other officials whose duties have been connected with the Transport Department, that it would be a waste of words on my part to enlarge upon it; but what I do desire to convey to your Lordships is the strong feeling that exists throughout the profession—in fact, this very Question has been placed in my hands by the Merchant Service Guild, by far the largest and most representative body of the captains
  550
  and officers of the merchant service—that these services should be recognised by the State. It is not a pecuniary reward that they would value so much as a decoration, showing that their efforts were appreciated by the nation. They have seen the members of the mercantile marine of Germany, France, and other countries rewarded in the way I suggest, and they feel themselves rather left out in the cold.
  I would remind your Lordships that these men are part of the fighting force of the nation. In days gone by, the captains and officers of the merchant navy often fought and defeated the enemy. Should occasion arise, you will find that their successors are as willing and ready to fight for the old flag as their predecessors. Is it not, then, the duty of the State to encourage such men? There are some few veterans still remaining of those merchant service captains and officers who did such splendid service in the Crimean War. They suffered frightful hardships. One P. and O. transport, the "Columbia," practically lost two crews in the Black Sea through hardship. Her chief officer, Captain Henry Toll, who is still alive, was laid up for months. The only reward these gentleman had were the praises and commendations of their services mentioned in speeches at the termination of the war. I think, my Lords, that it would be a very kindly and gracious act on the part of His Majesty's Government if, when they bestow, as I hope they will, decorations for service in this war, they remember the former service of these veterans, and cheer their declining years by showing them that their country has not forgotten their good work, even though nearly fifty years have passed since that work was done.
  THE FIRST LORD OF the ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): I am afraid I cannot answer at any length the Question of the noble Lord. His: Majesty's Government have still under consideration the representations made to them as to the due and proper recognition of the services of the merchant ships which have been engaged in transport service in the present war. I think the noble Lord goes rather far when he says that everybody who has had any connection with the war, in any capacity whatever, has already been

  551
  rewarded; and he must, if he considers the question, see that it involves distinct difficulties. All I can say is that it is being duly considered. Nobody doubts as to the excellence of the services rendered by the captains of all the transports engaged in connection with the war; indeed, I think it is one of the most magnificent records which the mercantile marine, even of this country, has ever shown—the manner in which the transport has been conducted.
  House adjourned at live minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.